Why the
silence in the Mishnah and Jerusalem Talmud
It has long been a subject of a surprise that the
Jerusalem
Talmud (c. 300 CE) has no references to Chanukah
whatsoever, and
those in the Mishnah (c.200 CE) are brief,
scattered and minimal.
As both were produced in the land of Israel, the home
of the
Chanukah holiday, the home of the victorious Maccabees
and their
restoration of the Temple and Jewish practices, the
absence of any systematic
and detailed presentation
and commentary regarding the laws of this long, eight
(8) day holiday has been baffling.
In essence, we rely on the Talmud Bavli (c. 500 CE,
Babylon)
for our information and halacha re: Chanukah.
The view of the late Lubavitcher Rebbe,
Rabbi Menachem
Mendel Shneerson, was that the Mishnah, compiled by
Rabbi Yehudah Hanasi,
does not expand on the laws of
Chanukah as they were very well know and
practiced
throughout the land by the people.
This, he argues, is
similarly the case with the key commandments of
Tefillin and
Mezuzot that also do not receive a tractate. Finally, he
argues Rabbi Judah Hanasi
followed the centuries old rule
that the oral law stay ‘oral’ and that the Mishnah
was
intended to only cover limited situations where there was a
However, this line of argument is unconvincing, as the
post-Biblical Jewish holiday.
And the Jerusalem Talmud also expounds on the Mishna’s
Megilah for Purim, but says not a word
regarding Chanukah.
Ephraim Diamond in his article “Chanukah in the
Mishna,
Tosefta and Tannaitic Literature” lists seven
(7) different
rabbinic explanations (including the above which is based on
He also includes with English translations, every Chanukah
text in the Mishnah (9), Tosefta (3) and Megillat Tan’nit (1).
As for the Talmud Bavli passages on Chanukah, they are
arranged by theme, with English translation, at
babylonian-talmud.html.:
namely Tractate Shabbat, 21a, 21b,
22a, 22b, 23a, 23b, 24b, 45a.
Related texts it notes are Shabbat 45B (moving any
candelabra on Shabbat); Gittin 57b (recount of the
martyrdom of the 7 sons and
their mother) and Sota 49b
(prohibition against learning Greek).
Wikipedia adds that modern scholar Reuvein
Margolies
Kochba revolt, deleting any section on
Chanukah for fear of
Dr. Malka Zeiger
Simkovich in her article at The
Torah.com,”Uncovering the Truth
About Chanukah”[v],
discusses how the focus in the
celebration of Chanukah
shifted: with the struggle for an independent Jewish state
pushed into the background while ‘the miracle of oil’ –given
as the reason for Chanukah’s
8 days of commemoration --
became predominant in later rabbinic times.
She correctly points out that the earliest and
contemporary
accounts do not mention any miracle of oil: namely,
1 Maccabees (down to the ascent of
Jonathan Hyrcanus in
134 BCE) and the shorter 2 Maccabees (down to
Judah
Maccabee’s final great victory in 161 BCE). Josephus
(raised in the land of Israel of
priestly family and a
commander in the Great Revolt until captured and taken to
Rome in 67 CE) also makes no mention of
a miracle of oil in
his coverage of the Temple’s purification and rededication
in
his the Jewish Antiquities, Book 12:7:6-7.
The miracle of oil only appears in much later texts: the
Talmud
Bavli (c. 500 CE) Shabbat 21b, repeated centuries
Megilat
Tannit for Kislev 25, and finally the
dubious and error
filled Megillat Chanukah/Maccabees/Antiochus (dated
copied from the Talmud.
Simkovich sees the total omission of the miracle of
oil in the
three contemporary and early texts as due to their focus on
the
military and warfare aspects leading to self-rule and
Jewish independence.
She also argues the focus on the miracle of oil (the
reason
given for the holiday’s 8 day celebration) in the later rabbinic
texts,
was a conscious “rebranding” and probably post-Bar
Kochba’s revolt.
As she states:
“Here is one suggestion. I believe the rabbis
may have been trying to distance themselves from the Hasmonean association,
which has strong resonances with insurrectionist and militaristic periods in
Judean history, especially the final great rebellion against Rome: The Bar
Kochba revolt.[6]
In this final attempt at forcing the Romans out of Judea, Bar Kochba and
thousands of his loyalists led a massive revolt the devastated the Roman
economy for years. Between 132-135 CE, Shimon Bar Kochba (whose real name was
Shimon bar Kosiba; he likely changed his name to “Son of a Star” to give
himself some messianic mystique)[7]
brought major disaster upon the Jews living in Roman Palestine when his
rebellion against Rome turned sour and scores of thousands of Jews were killed.
In addition to the human carnage wreaked by Bar
Kochba, the Romans razed the city of Jerusalem to the ground and banned Jews
from entering it. They gave Jerusalem a Latin name, Aelia Capitolina, and built
within it a temple dedicated to the god Jupiter, among others. The Jews of this
region moved up north, to cities such as Caesaria, Sepphoris and Tiberias,
never to return to their beloved holy city. Jerusalem was not re-established as
a thriving Jewish city again until modern times.”
… Understanding the history of the
Jews living in Roman Palestine in the 4th-5th century
helps us to appreciate why the Rabbis were so hesitant to associate themselves
with a militaristic history during the centuries that Talmudic material was
being arranged and recorded. During these centuries, the quality of life in
this region plummeted. The legal code of the 5th century
Christian Emperor Theodosius prohibited Jews from holding all governmental
posts except for tax collectors. They were also prohibited from building new
synagogues within the Empire.
Unrestrained anti-Jewish rhetoric on the part of 5th century
Church fathers burgeoned during this period. The situation deteriorated further
in the 6th century when the Christian Emperor Justinian wrote
his own legal code, in which further restrictions were placed on Jews, such as
the prohibition of publicly reading the Torah, and reading the Mishnah.[8] It
is no surprise, therefore, that the Rabbis did not want to present themselves
as supporters of a political uprising.
However, I believe she is not listening
carefully to what the
early sources say and does not address fully the 'elephant
in the room’.
in the room’.
Yes,
1 Maccabees and 2 Maccabees and Josephus have
lengthy and detailed passages on the
many battles -- and
ups and downs -- of the revolt.
After
all, they are histories.
And contrary to the impression we have, and
pass on to our
children, the recovery of Jerusalem and Temple restoration
in 165 BCE was not the end of the struggle and fighting.
Far from it.
Far from it.
Immediately,
as described in 1 Maccabees ch 5, the
Maccabees were involved in a string of battles against six
Maccabees were involved in a string of battles against six
(6) local gentile cities
and peoples who were now carrying
out attacks and even pogroms against their Jewish
populations. The Maccabees succeeded in bring back the
survivors
to the safety of Judea.
And,
as the Seleucid kings refused to accept any Jewish –
even semi-independent –
state, invading armies arrived year
after year: laying siege to cities, carrying out
mass slaughter
and mass destruction in their paths.
These
invasions culminated in 4 major battles: 2 Maccabee
victories, and 2 loses, between164
BCE and 160 BCE.
Yes, 4 major battles in just 4 years!
The
Maccabees were victorious at the Battle of Beth Zur in
164 BCE. But in 162 BCE the Maccabees were defeated
Eliezer Maccabee died). On Adar
13, 161 BCE, the
Maccabees gained a great victory at Adasa over the huge
army
of Nicanor. And, final, in 160 BCE at
the Battle of
Elasa, Judah Maccabee was killed in a major
defeat[viii].
After
Elasa, the Seleucids regained control of Jerusalem
and area, and the remaining Maccabees and their followers fled to the hills, the wilderness and the marshes and returned to guerrila warfare.
and area, and the remaining Maccabees and their followers fled to the hills, the wilderness and the marshes and returned to guerrila warfare.
Jonathan
became their leader and eventually, by 153 BCE,
was able to get both rivals for
the Seleucid throne:
Alexander Balas and Demetrius II, to agree to accept
Alexander Balas and Demetrius II, to agree to accept
him
as ruler and High Priest of Jerusalem and Judea.
He officiated as High Priest for the first time at Succot
He officiated as High Priest for the first time at Succot
For
the ensuing 10 years, all was good.
But
In 142 BCE Judea was again invaded from the north by
the new Seleucid ruler,
Tryphon. He had tricked Jonathan
into a meeting, took him prisoner and executed
him even
after a ransom had been paid. His
army proceeded toward
Jerusalem but fortunately a sudden snowstorm prevented
this. Tryphon soon died thereafter. [x]
That
same year, Demetrius II, regaining his throne, declared
Simon Maccabee High Priest
and ruler of Jerusalem and
Judea – something that was ratified by an assembly
of the
people in 141 BCE, and affirmed by the Roman Senate in
139 BCE[xi].
“On Elul 18 … in a great assembly of priests, people, rulers
of the nation, and elders of the region,
the Jewish
people and their priests had decided the following: Simon shall be their leader
and high priest forever until a trustworthy prophet arises.
… and
Simon accepted and agreed to be high priest, governor, and ethnarch* of the Jewish people and
priests, and to have authority over all.”
priests, and to have authority over all.”
As
well, Simon succeeded in achieving the final step that no
Maccabee before him
had accomplished. The Seleucids
had successfully maintained a garrison/citadel
near the Temple mount even after Judah’s recovery of Jerusalem.
Judah
had troops encircle it to prevent them harassing those
involved in cleansing
and rededicating the Temple in 165
BCE (1 Maccabees ch 4: 41). Efforts over the decades to
overcome and
expel them failed.
But
Simon successful laid siege to the citadel, forced its
surrender and replaced
the troops with Jews (1 Maccabees
ch 13: 49-52).
To
celebrate this fantastic event, a joyful procession ensued
and the day declared
an annual, national holiday (Megillat
Tannit entry for Iyar 23).
1 Maccabees ch
13:51-52
On the twenty-third day of the second month [Iyar],* … the Jews entered the citadel with shouts of praise, the waving of palm branches, the playing of harps and cymbals and lyres, and the singing of hymns and canticles, because a great enemy of Israel had been crushed.
Consequently,
only then did the ‘revolt’ actually end.
Put
simply, the war for independence and self-rule: from Matityahu’s start in 167
BCE to its final conclusion in 142 BCE, lasted a quarter of a century!
As for Sinkevich’s claim that the
books of the Maccabees do
not pay much attention to the temple’s restoration –
hence
they ‘miss’ the miracle of oil event, the reason for the 8 day
holiday – is simply untrue.
Simkovich only gives partial quotes from 1 Maccabees and
2 Maccabees who actually cover the rededication of the
2 Maccabees who actually cover the rededication of the
Temple in great detail.
1 Maccabees Ch 4; 36 to 60, a total of 24 verse are spent
describing the
entire scene of the dilapidated and defiled
temple and its grounds, assigning
priests to purify the
sanctuary, built a new alter while storing the stones of
the
defiled alter “until the
coming of a prophet who could
determine what to do with them”.
To quote the text which Simkovich leaves out:
Ch 4: 48-51, 57
Ch 4: 48-51, 57
“They also
repaired the sanctuary and the interior of the temple and consecrated the
courts. They made new sacred vessels and brought the lampstand, the
altar of incense, and the table into the temple. Then they
burned incense on the altar and lighted the lamps on the lampstand, and these
illuminated the temple. They also put
loaves on the table and hung up the curtains. Thus they finished all the work
they had undertaken.”
…
The above
quotes and the entire temple preparation
section of ch 10 is highly detailed
and shows a pious
attention to every element and every challenge that
needed to
be overcome to restore the Temple and its
services."
But notice
there is NO MENTION of any problem re:
oil for the menorah, the lampstand.
In fact, verse 50 simple states as a matter of fact that they lit the Menorah the day before the consecration ceremonies.
In fact, verse 50 simple states as a matter of fact that they lit the Menorah the day before the consecration ceremonies.
Similarly, Simkovich
ignores and leaves out in her quote
from 2 Maccabees ch 10 the following:
Ch10: 1 - 3 “When Maccabeus and his companions, under the
Lord’s leadership, had recovered the temple and the city they
destroyed the altars erected by the foreigners in the marketplace and the
sacred shrines.
After purifying the temple, they made another altar. Then,
with fire struck from flint, they offered sacrifice for the first time in two
years, burned incense, and lighted lamps. They also set out
the showbread.”
Again, there
is no ‘problem’ requiring a ‘miracle of oil’.
The priests simply “lighted the
lamps”.
And surely the
author of 2 Maccabees would have given
such a Menorah ‘oil miracle’ prominence,
because he
was a pious, religious Jew who constantly mentions God
and the
divine role in all victories and divine punishment
in defeats and
suffering.
Ch 1:11-12 and 17
“Since we have been saved by
God from grave dangers, we give him great thanks as befits those who fought
against the king; for it was God
who drove out those who fought against the holy city.”
Ch 6:12-17
[God’s Purpose] Now I
urge those who read this book not to be disheartened by these misfortunes, but
to consider that these punishments were meant not for the ruin but for the
correction of our nation. It is, in fact, a sign of
great kindness to punish the impious promptly instead of letting them go for
long. Thus, in dealing with other nations, the Sovereign Lord
patiently waits until they reach the full measure of their sins before
punishing them; but with us he has decided to deal differently, in order that he may not have to punish us later, when our sins
have reached their fullness.
Therefore he never withdraws his mercy from us. Although he disciplines us with
misfortunes, he does not abandon his own people. Let these words suffice for recalling this truth. Without further
ado we must go on with our story.”
Thereafter, ch
6 recounts in detail the martyrdom of the old
scribe Eliezer (Ch 6:18-31), followed
up with the
martyrdom of the 7 sons and their mother -- which takes up
the
entire Ch7: all 42 verses.
These chapters
6 and 7 passages are the source for all
later references to these tragedies.
Many, many more examples of the author’s piety
and world
view are prominent in later chapters as well.
For such an author to ‘miss’ and omit the
‘miracle of oil’ is
implausible.
Especially as he begins his narrative with a highly detailed
description of a ‘fire miracle’ at the
Temple’s dedication
by Nehemiah some 3 centuries beforehand.
The account is
worth quoting in full:
Ch 1:19-36
For when our ancestors were being led
into captivity in Persia,* devout
priests at the time took some of the fire from the altar and hid it secretly in
the hollow of a dry cistern, making sure that the place would be unknown to
anyone. Many years later, when it so pleased God,
Nehemiah, commissioned by the king of Persia, sent the descendants of the
priests who had hidden the fire to look for it. When they informed us that they could not find any fire, but only
a thick liquid, he ordered them to scoop some out and bring it. After the
material for the sacrifices had been prepared, Nehemiah ordered the priests to
sprinkle the wood and what lay on it with the liquid. This was done, and when at length the sun, which had been clouded
over, began to shine, a great fire blazed up, so that everyone marveled. While the sacrifice was being burned, the priests recited a
prayer, and all present joined in with them. Jonathan led and the rest
responded with Nehemiah.
The
prayer was as follows: “Lord, Lord God, creator of all things, awesome and
strong, just and merciful, the only king and benefactor, who
alone are gracious, just, almighty, and eternal, Israel’s savior from all evil,
who chose our ancestors and sanctified them: accept this sacrifice on behalf of all
your people Israel and guard and sanctify your portion. Gather
together our scattered people, free those who are slaves among the Gentiles,
look kindly on those who are despised and detested, and let the Gentiles know
that you are our God. Punish those who lord it over us and in their
arrogance oppress us. Plant your people in your holy place, as Moses
said.”
Then
the priests sang hymns. After the sacrifice was consumed,
Nehemiah ordered the rest of the liquid to be poured upon large stones. As
soon as this was done, a flame blazed up, but its light was lost in the
brilliance coming from the altar. When the event became known and the
king of the Persians was told that, in the very place where the exiled priests
had hidden the fire, a liquid was found with which Nehemiah and his people had
burned the sacrifices, the king, after verifying the fact,
fenced the place off and declared it sacred. To those whom the king favored, he
distributed many benefits he received. Nehemiah and his companions called the
liquid nephthar, meaning purification, but most people named it naphtha.*
To believe that such a pious author would ‘miss’ or omitted a
similar ‘miracle
of oil’ during the Tempe preparation in his
own times is beyond belief
and credulity.
Why 8 days long?
As for the holiday’s length of
8 days, 2 Maccabees ch. 10;
5-7 states clearly it was because for at least 2 years the
5-7 states clearly it was because for at least 2 years the
harvest festival of Succot/Shemini Atzeret (8 days) had been
prohibited by Antiouch IV and was now revived.
And why start on Kislev 25?
Because the 25th of Kislev was the date that Antiochus had first defiled the Temple with pagan pig sacrifices.
And why start on Kislev 25?
Because the 25th of Kislev was the date that Antiochus had first defiled the Temple with pagan pig sacrifices.
In fact, 2 Maccabbes states the holiday was called the “Festival of
Boots (Succot) in Kislev” in a letter to the Jews of Egypt asking them to also
celebrate it on it first anniversary -- 164 BCE (ch 1:18) and the same name was used
for the holiday in another letter to Egypt (ch 1: 9) in 124 BCE[xii].
Moreover, ch 10:6 -7 stress that the 165 BCE original
ceremonial
procession through the streets included holding
palm branches, and the
sacrifices were as prescribed by the
Torah for the 8 days of the ‘holiday of
booths’, i.e.,
Ch 10:9 further states plainly that it was on this
basis the
holiday was made annual.
So, in the two contemporary and semi-official accounts
of
the books of the Maccabees, there no mention of any
problem with menorah
‘oil’, nor link of any oil issue to the 8
day length of the new holiday.
Even Josephus – of priestly family and raised into
adulthood
in Judea until his capture by the Romans in 67 BCE -- did not
know of
such a ‘miracle of oil’ nor any tradition that this
miracle led to the holiday’s
8 day celebration.
His detailed description (Jewish Antiquities 12:7:6-7) of the
challenges of restoring the damaged and dilapidated Temple
building: new doors, new vessels, new alter, etc. match the
details of 1Maccabbees: work that would have
taken many
weeks of repairs and lengthy preparations.
Even the selection of 25 Kislev for the
rededication
ceremonies and opening of the 8 days of celebration is tied
to
Antochus IV’s violation of the Temple 3 years before as
stated in the books of
the Maccabees.
So, Josephus
also has no knowledge of a ‘miracle of oil’
whatsoever, nor an ‘oil’ link to
the 8 day long holiday.
Consequently,
Dr Simkovich’s argument that the miracle of
oil is ‘missed’ by these 3 early
sources as they focus only on
the battles, is unfair and plays fast and loose with
the texts.
The Tempe’s
restoration challenges and details are not
ignored by these sources but given
in detail. And the 8 day
length of the
holiday is explicitly connected to
Succot/Shemini Atzret.
Again, the contemporary
and semi-official authors of the
books the Maccabees They and Josephus – born
and raised
in Judea of priestly descent under captured and taken to
rome in67
CE – never knew of such a ‘miracle of oil’ and any
tradition of this miracle
was the reason the holiday was 8
days long.
This is not
an argument from silence. The evidence is more than ample.
Focus on the
Temple restoration only
Simkovich is, however, probably correct that after the
destruction of the 2nd Temple and failed Great Revolt – a
revolt
that lasted 4 years in Jerusalem (66-70 CE) and for another 3 years until
Masada and other rebel enclaves were crushed: a total of seven years.
Remembering
the Maccabees and their revolt was ‘unwise’ for decades and centuries
thereafter.
Rome had
little patience for rebels and crushed them
without mercy.
without mercy.
And even
between 73 CE and the start of the Bar Kochvah revolt, 132 CE, not only was
there a Roman legion permanently
encampment outside what was left of Jerusalem,
but smaller Jewish revolts also made news.
Dr Simkovich
could have mentioned the often overlooked Jewish rebellions across the
Mediterranean between 115 CE and 117 CE in Cyrenaica, Egypt, Cyprus, Mesopotamia and even Judea known as the
Kitos Wars[xiv].
And the Rabbi
Akiva endorsed Bar Kochva revolt: successful for two and a half years with
control of Jerusalem and Judea, and the minting of Jewish coinage, ended –as
Simkovich notes above - in utter disaster.
So, yes,
promoting an annual 8 day celebration of the Maccabee rebellion would have been
suicidal.
As well, to
include Chanukah in any written text – Mishna or Jerusalem Talmud – while the
power and fear of Rome was readily visible was also foolhardy: even if, as in
the case of the Mishna, the text wasto be in Hebrew – i.e., a language already
relegated for centuries to just religious services and Jewish prayer books.
Why the Talmud Bavli?
So why is
the Talmud Bavli able to include lengthy sections on Chanukah – even
tangentially -- in tractate Shabbat?
Because
Babylon and Sura and Pumbedita and Eastern diaspora Jewry never lived under
Roman rule nor the Christian church.
Their area was still under Seleucid rule
until some time around 127 BCE when it came
under Zoroastrian Parthian rule.
It remained so for the next 100 years. In 224 CE , the Parthians were overthrown by the Iranian Sasanian Empire – also Zoroastrians - which ruled over Babylonia for over 400 years -- until 651 CE.
It remained so for the next 100 years. In 224 CE , the Parthians were overthrown by the Iranian Sasanian Empire – also Zoroastrians - which ruled over Babylonia for over 400 years -- until 651 CE.
In 651 CE,
Islamic Arab armies took control of Babylonia, and the entire area has been
under Muslim rule ever since.
This
different political/religious background may well explain the greater freedom the
Babylonian Talmud (c.500) seems
to have had to discuss Chanukah, its practices, customs
and halacha.
to have had to discuss Chanukah, its practices, customs
and halacha.
Miracle of Oil , Chanukah name and lighting
lights/Chanukiah are post-70 CE
creations.
The story
of the Miracle of Oil, and its use to explain the
8 day holiday, was not, as Simkovich sees it, simply a ‘rebranding’ or refocusing. It is neither original nor contemporary with the Temple’s rededication or even Josephus’early 1st century CE time.
8 day holiday, was not, as Simkovich sees it, simply a ‘rebranding’ or refocusing. It is neither original nor contemporary with the Temple’s rededication or even Josephus’early 1st century CE time.
For it and two
other Chanukah staples, it seems, are all related and of post- 70 CE origin.
The name Chanukah – meaning (re-)dedication –
was unknown to Josephus and the earlier Maccabee book authors. Josephus only
knew it as the Festival of Lights (Jewsih Antquities 12:7:7) and it is called
the “festival of Booths in Kislev” at least down to 124 BCE in 2 Maccabbees as noted above.
Even lighting anything at home was unknown
to the 3 earliest sources which only know of lighting the Temple Menorah and
illuminating the Temple’s interior and exterior.
Mishnah, Bava Kama 6:6 is the first mention of lighting a memorial
light for Chanukah beyond the Temple grounds. Here, Rabbi Yehudah Hanassi rules
that if someone places a single wick oil lamp outside of his store to commemorate
a day of Chanukah and a bundle of flax on a camel ignites as it passes nearby,
the storekeeper is not liable. If the storekeeper left an oil lamp outside not
on Chanukah, i.e., to illuminate the front of his store for by- passers, he is
liable for damages.
Talmud Bavli, Shabbat 21b explains that in its time (up
to c. 500 CE) the norm was to place
only one oil lamp outdoors by the entrance or in times of danger inside
the home in a prominent place. In more ‘pious’ homes, each male and each female
would light their own ‘single oil lamp’ each night. Having a special, custom
made clay or metal candelabra – and lighting
more than one oil lamp (or candle) ever, was for the most pious who wished to
enhance the mitzvah even more. Hence the Talmud’s citing Beit Hillel and Beit
Shammai who used candelabra, lit multiple oil pots over the 8 days, but
disagreed if the multiplication of light should decrease or increase over the 8
days.
The Talmud
does not say Shammai and Hillel, who lived before the destruction of the
Temple, but rather names their yeshivot/academies that flourished for centuries
thereafter.
Conclusion
If one then connects the dots, it would seem that the three
central elements of our commemoration of Chanukah today: its very name,
lighting at home ,and using a custom Chanukah candelabra – all date from a time
after Josephus and his capture and exodus to Rome in 67 CE.
After the
destruction of the 2nd temple in 70 CE, it would have seemed logical
to replace earlier names with a
symbolic name in memory for was lost and
in hope that there would be a 3RD Temple. Hence, Chanukah – ‘re-dedication’ -- became the holidays name and ‘code word’.
Lighting commemorative lights at home or at one’s shop
– unknown to Josephus and earlier sources who lived during the Hasmonean times–
seems to have been a fitting ‘zacher
laMkdash’ – in memory of the lost Temple and its hallmark menorah; a
menorah that was carted off by Titus to Rome.
And the
custom of using a special 8 branch + shamush candelabra, which was in Talmudic
times a hidur mitzvah of the very highest
level, has become over time the norm.
When we look at a Chanukiah, its resemblance to the Temple’s menorah cannot be missed.
When we look at a Chanukiah, its resemblance to the Temple’s menorah cannot be missed.
Finally,
the account of the small pot of oil which miraculously was able to keep seven menorah
oil pots burning 24/8 – yes, 24 hours a day for 8 days, is also a post 70 CE
product.
There is
only one source for this explanation for Chanukah being 8 days long: the Talmud Bavli (c. 500 CE) and it
conflicts with the testimony of the early and contemporary Maccabee sources and even Josephus.
conflicts with the testimony of the early and contemporary Maccabee sources and even Josephus.
By the time
of the Talmud Bavli (c. 500 CE), the Miracle of Oil story, created post-70 CE and
linked to the 8 days of Chanukah, was now old. The Talmud’s account beginning with the vague
reference, “The Sages taught …”.(Shabbat 21b)
It was
copied thereafter by both the dubious and error filled Megilat
Chanukah/Maccabees/Antiochus and the
Scholion.
So the
story of the Miracle of Oil – and its link to Chanukah’s length of for 8 days --
is not from three separate sources, but just one; the Talmud Bavli; written down some 600 years
after the event, and then recopied again and again.
It is a
beautiful and magical tale that adds a smile to children’s faces and adds a ‘concrete
miracle’ to a
Maccabee revolt that in reality lasted a painful 25 years.
Maccabee revolt that in reality lasted a painful 25 years.
It is also
noteworthy that this ‘miracle’ is not mentioned in
the rabbinic prayer, Al Hanissim for Chanukah; a prayer that, according to the Talmud Bavli, Shabbat 21b, was composed by the Sages in 164 BCE, for the 2nd annual celebration of the holiday.
the rabbinic prayer, Al Hanissim for Chanukah; a prayer that, according to the Talmud Bavli, Shabbat 21b, was composed by the Sages in 164 BCE, for the 2nd annual celebration of the holiday.
Final Notes
Actual Historic Sources
It is a
pity that for centuries the vast majority of world Jewry has been unaware of
the true and full story of Chanukah and the Maccabees. The contemporary accounts of 1 Maccabees and 2
Maccabees, preserved in the Septuagint,
were only available to the Greek speaking Jews of Egypt.
Christians have known these texts since the early 5th century CE when Jerome included them in his landmark Latin Vulgate Bible (405 CE), used ever since by Catholics.
Even Christian English speakers have had access to these texts since the great King James Bible of 1611.
They are a
standard parts of Catholic and many Protestant bibles.
As for
Josephus’ Jewish Antiquities, written
in Greek to explain Judaism, Jewish values and Jewish history to the educated Roman
elite,
it too has been ‘overlooked’ for
centuries in rabbinic and Jewish circles.
Life and history are messy. Anyone who wishes to get a fuller understanding of Chanukah should read 1 Maccabees and 2 Maccabees; both are readily available on line in English.
Birnbaum Siddur
Lastly, Philip
Birnbaum, iIn his still popular siddur, Hasiddur
Hashalam (1949), included a Hebrew
and English translation of the Megilat Chanukah/Maccabees/Antiochus
in the hope that it would be read on Chanukah like Megilat Esther is read in synagogues on Purim. His footnote
acknowledges that the text, which Saadya Gaon
(died 942 CE) believed was written by the Hasmoneans, was in fact a 7th
century CE creation.
Louis
Ginzberg in the Jewish Encyclopedia[xvi]
cites the most obvious errors in this work which he calls “spurious”: Antioch
is not a coastal city [It is at least 30 miles inland on
a river] .The
Hasmonean brother John (Jonathan) was not already the High Priest at the start
of the revolt. John was neither the
first leader nor nicknamed “Maccabee” [It was Judah]. The Maccabee revolt was
not started by John’s stealthily murder of Seleucid general Nicanor is his own home
(taken from Judges 3:12-30 story of Ehud) [Nicanor was defeated by Judah
Maccabee and killed in the Battle
of Adasa, on Adar 13, 161 BCE[xvii]].
of Adasa, on Adar 13, 161 BCE[xvii]].
And anyone
who writes that the Hasmoneans ruled until the destruction of the Temple in
70 CE (Megilat Antiochus 77) has never
heard of King Herod nor of Pontius Pilot.
While
clearly pious in intent, the work is totally unreliable and fictitious: too distant
in time and place (probably Babylon[xviii]).
It is
therefore unfortunate that Birnbaum included it in his popular siddur (first
printing 1949).
It would
have been far better if he had added 1
Maccabees and 2 Maccabees
instead; or at least the shorter latter
which ends with Judah Maccabee’s last great victory, and includes the full
accounts of the martyrdoms of the old scribe Eliezer and the 7 sons and their
mother.
[vi] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Megillat_Taanit gives 7th century CE or later in general; https://www.thetorah.com/article/uncovering-the-truth-about-chanukah, footnote 2 dates the Chanukah entry to the 9th
or 10 century CE according to Vered Noam
[vii] See for 2nd to 5th
CE date, https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kitos_War. Louis
Ginzberg suggest it may beas late as 750
to 850 CE. http://jewishencyclopedia.com/articles/1596-antiochus-scroll-of
[x] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Diodotus_Tryphon. Based on the
detailed account of
1 Maccabee ch 12: 39-53 and ch 13: 1-30.
No comments:
Post a Comment