Very well presented. As being from the few frum people still not banned on RJ, I was trying to figure out from these guys how Chazal means anything to them, but from 4 guys, couldn't get a straight answer. It's all "don't you know?" "still in elementary school?" but no one can actually explain why they follow Chazal in halacha, but in agada they don't even get the benefit of the doubt. "The sages erred in regard to the suns path right?" "R"A ben Harambam doesn't believe in any agada" and other stuff like that.
Besides for what I said in the post that the neis of the oil is directly linked to the mitzvah of Ner Chanukah, there is a clear difference between an aggadah about something supernatural which is not presented as a neis, and one which is presented as a neis. A neis is not just a supernatural occurence, but is a sign from God to the onlookers, like the makkos. The stories about Ashmodai, Rabba Bar Bar Chana, and Vashti's tail are not a sign from God and are not presented that way. Therefore it makes sense to explain them non-literally, and may make more sense than explaining them kepshuto. The pure oil lighting for eight days is an obvious sign from God and is presented that way in the Gemara.
Are you aware that the rishonim/acharonim on Nach consistently bring peshotim completely different from the gemorroh? There is a mesorah that we are not bound to follow aggadic explanations of pesukim. Obviously the precise geder is unclear. That is of course not saying we are not bound to follow the reason of neis shemen. Different things.
Are we obliged to believe that all the Rabbi Channinah ban Dosah miracle stories are literal? The maharal states clearly Vashti did not grow a tail (contrary to the gemorroh). I think it says it means she put on a bit of weight. The reasoning is straightforward, if she had grown a tail that would be a neis niglah, and purim is not supposed to have that.
I am aware of all of that, now let me tell you something you are not aware of. RA ben harambam gives clear gedarim. He splits pshatim into 2, and splits agada in general into 5. And no one on RJ knows the difference, except maybe, sit down for this one, slifkin. I don't know what made you think I think it's black and white.
R. Meiselman in Torah, Chazal, and Science, discusses at length how his surviving body of work was corrupted to further a rationalist agenda. I know how Slifkin has slandered the book and the author. I don't care.
I have read the Feldheim edition of Sefer HaMaspik. If only the entire sefer were available! It is clear that where we are certain of the provenance of his writings, his fidelity to our mesorah is total.
BTW, Tycho Brahe said the sages were correct about the construction of the heavens, and not the goyim, and they were wrong to concede.
I didn't say I live my whole life based on RABHR. But if anyone wants to discredit chazal based on him, they need to know what he says, since anything further than that is beyond the pail.
Furthermore, almost everything he says there one can find in the Rambam in הקדמה לחלק, just more concisely. There is no reason to assume RABHR didn't hold that way, regardless of the legitimacy of the manuscript.
I know about Rabbi Meiselman's book, wasn't so convinced. Anyway, prior to writing it, meaning for the first 70 years of his life, he assumed it was legit, as he said in a shiur in 2006.
I told me many times this is not my subject, but it makes no difference if you say they were wrong for conceding, that means the sages could be wrong too!
ובברייתא תנא שבא גבריאל ועשה לה זנב פירוש זנב הנאמר בכאן שעשה לה מלאך כבידות הטבע כי הזנב הוא כבידות הבעל חי והוא תוספות הנגרר אחר הבעל חי ולפיכך לא רצתה לבא משום הזנב הזה כלומר כבידות הטבע שהיה לה באותה שעה שכמה פעמים יש לאדם כבידות הטבע ומבטל דבר זה תנועת האדם שאינו רוצה לקום ממקומו וכו' ע"ש באריכות
LOL. Test translated כבידות הטבע in Maharal as extra weight! As if a tail appearing suddenly is any less miraculous. BTW, even if chazal are kepshuto, (like a growth in that area) I have no idea where people got this from that it was a furry one.
Extra weight is far more b'derech hatevah. But it seems it meant she felt like extra weight and couldn't moce. Not clear what ckveidus hatevah, but my memory isn't bad considering I haven't looked at it for 30 years. LOL all you like, but that is silly nit-picking.
Quite. The gemoroh says she grew a tail. The Maharal says she did not. Only with the most convoluted kvetching can you say with straight face that is not a contradiction, only an 'explanation".
The whole life's mission of the maharal is never to think any of the sages erred in anything, even if it means explaining their words with no simple meaning. Quite the worst source you want to bring when I brought up how people discredit chazal on agada completely!
Um... I started this whole thread with mentioning how I was discussing with a few kofrim who say that chazal have no authority on anything but halacha.
you should learn reb avraham ben harambam's agadah kuntreis, or moreh nevuchim where they explain that chazal were clearly not being literal and only the thickest of people will take it that way. ever learned the rabba bar bar chana stories? are those "obviously" literal as well? did a frog the size of a city sit on a branch? basics, man
Clearly that is the case when there is a clear exaggeration. No doubt about that.
That doesn’t mean that vashti's tail is likewise untrue, does it?
There are plenty of people who will give you "the look" if you say Avrohom never smashed his dad's idols, or survived nimrod's furnace. Or Yackov's neck never turned to iron. It's all just aggadatic to demonstrate Hashem's protection.
point is the maharal is not arguing with the gemara. he is interpreting it. just like Hashem's eyes are (obviously) not physical. i was calling you out on your error
There is a quote from the words of the Maharal above. As can be seen clearly, he says that he is explaining the gemara. He does so in a non literal way, but he himself says he is explaining the gemara.
Kvetching is not necessary here, reading the actual words inside is necessary.
That sort of word salad might work well verbally in the BH when trying to bamboozle a chavrusoh, but in writing, it is complete nonsense.
The gemoroh says she grew a tail. The Maharal says she did not.
It's not that difficult.
Can I reinterpret chazal about Avrohom in the kivshon ha'esh as he was in general physical danger for his beliefs and was saved. I'm not contradicting, I'm just explaining, right?
The Maharal SAYS that he is explaining the gemara. You think you know better than him what he himself wrote?!?!
I challenge you to answer that question using only 1 word, either yes, no, unsure. Don't accuse me of word salads, don't obfuscate the issue by asking another question.
As it says : Therefore, carrying 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.
There are a number of contradictions, yes. The pshat that they kept sukkos late though seems likely, based on Shitas Beis Shamai on Kneged Paros Hachag. I would still correct your original post, as the claim of Hallel seems incorrect.
On second thought, I'm not sure. It says they said Hallel that year, but is that included in the takana for the following years -"They decreed by public edict, ratified by vote, that the whole nation of the Jews should observe these days every year"? And if so, did they also decree by public edict to use lulavim on Chanukah? Presumably not (unless author 2 Maccabees really thinks they did), so what exactly they decreed by public edict is vague. It could mean Hallel, or it could be just "a festival of joy and gladness" like 1 Maccabees.
We presumably know the public edict based on our practices. Seemingly Hallel and not Lulav (which makes sense, because we use our lulav once a year but say Hallel many times).
I would venture that originally, they kept sukkos late, and the nes shemen showed them that Hashem approved of their actions (just like an earlier nes where they celebrated an early chanukas habayis and ate on Yom kippur, which showed Hashem approved of their actions). But the nes shemen was a minor celebration in the scheme of things. Once Chazal came around, they reemphasized the original nes shemen for reasons of their own (be it because they lived in an environment where celebrating rebellion would not have been wise, or because, then, like today, people were using the Maccabees as poor role models, or perhaps for kabbalistic reasons of their own).
I don't think it was ever a celebration of rebellion per se in these sources. In all three sources I bring, it is a celebration of the rededication of the Bais Hamikdash. In Al Hanisim we emphasize the victory, but Chazal were never mevatel that, so it doesn't seem it was a problem.
I would say that Chazal were giving us a deeper insight into why they instituted Chanukah, which either these authors were ignorant of, or as Lou Yaskilu brings above, didn't find significant enough to mention, since there were similar nissim every day.
פרטים ברורים אודות המחבר וזמנו המדויק אינם ידועים, אך נראה שהיה מיהודי ארץ ישראל", ממחנה הפרושים הנאמנים לחז"ל (שהיוו את רוב העם)", והוא ערך את ספרו בשנים הראשונות להנהגתו של יוחנן הורקנוס", סמוך לשנת ג"א תרל"א לב"ע (921 לפני הסה"ג)". הכותב סמך על דברים ששמע מפי בני דור המרד, וגם השתמש בתעודות ומכתבים מקוריים שנשמרו בארכיון החשמונאי'', ויש מי שהראה פנים לסברא שבצעירותו נמנה המחבר עצמו על חילו של יהודה המקבי והשתתף בגופו בחלק מהקרבות המתוארים בספריי.
בעבר ביקשו חלק מהחוקרים להציג את המחבר כצדוקי, אך דבריהם דחויים לגמרי, שכן בתקופה שבה נכתב הספר היו הצדוקים מרוחקים מן השלטון ושונאים את בית חשמונאי, ולעומתם מעריץ הכותב את החשמונאים הראשונים ללא גבול ורואה רק אותם כמושיעי התורה, העם והארץ. אפשר שניתן להביא סמך נוסף להשתייכותו של המחבר לקהל היראים, מהעובדה שהוא מקפיד לא לנקוב בפירוש בשם ה', ובשל כך הוא מתבטא באופן עמום במקצת כמו נקרא לשמים, אם יחפץ בנר, "הללו לשמים כי טוב כי לעולם חסדו', 'ויברכו לשמים אשר הצליח להם'. יתכן שזהירות זו נובעת מתוך הידור בקיום תקנת חז"ל לבל יזכירו את שם האל בשטרות (עיין במגילת תענית לג' בתשרי ובר"ה יח ע"ב), תקנה שהצדוקים התנגדו לה, כפי שמשתמע בסוף מסכת ידים (פ"ד מ"ח).
רב חריטן in his amazing edition of ספר מקבים says that they were simply unaware of it
התשובה הנכונה היא כמ"ש ר' נתן פריד "חכמי א"י מימי התלמודים והמדרשים לא ידעו כלל על נס פך שמן וכן לא נתקיימה גירסא כזאת בברייתא דמגילת תענית שהיתה בידם! הברייתא במגילת תענית בדפוסים המספרת על נס פך שמן, והמופיעה בסוגית חנוכה במסכת שבת דילן, אינה אלא ברייתא בבילת שנשתרבבה שם... ברם לא נודעה לחכמי א"י ואף לא לסופרי קורות העיתים הקדומים... שכל אותן המקורות הקודמים החל מספרי החשמונאים וכלה בפייטני א"י ומקצת מפייטני אירופה הקדמונים לא ידעו כלל שאמנם היה נס בשמן. לשיטתם נקבע חג חנוכה לזכר הנצחונות והנסים שאירעו לבני חשמונאי במלחמותיהם גמד היוונים."
מובן שהדבר אומר דרשני,מדוע אכן נתעלם נס זה מבני ציון היקרים? ר' נתן פריד רמז בקיצור נמרץ לפרש הענין: שלא הדגישו נס פך השמן משום שנס דומה היה מעשה בכל יום, בנר מערבי שבמנורת בית המקדש. ויש להרחיב מעט את הביאור על פי מש"כ הג"ר יצחק ישעיה וייס " בני ארץ ישראל היו מרגלים בנר המערבי ובעשר ניסים שנעשו יום יום בבית המקדש, ולא התרשמו במיוחד מנס פך השמן. מאידך, גזירות הדת והרדיפות הקשות תקפו עליהם אחרי זמן ארוך של עצמאות רוחנית,- משאירע הנס והם גברו על האויבים הדגישו רק את התשועה שהיו בה חידוש ומשמעות עבורם, מסרת גבורים ביד חלשים, ורבים ביד מעטים כו', ואילו נס פך השמן כמעט שלא צויין על ידם, וזכרו הלך ונשתכח מאתם. ולעומתם בני בבל שסבלו הרבה מהשליטים המתחבלים וחשו תמיד כיצד שומר הקב"ה על כבשתו הנתונה בין ע' זאבים, לא ראו את נס נצחון על היוונים כסיבת מספקת לקבוע חג מחמתו, ולפיכך שאלו מאי חנוכה, והשיבו שחנוכה נתקן בשל פך שמן המועט שהדליקו ממנו ח' ימים, דבר שהיה פלא בלתי רגיל כלל לעיניהם.
His answer makes no sense. The bnei EY didn't *know* about it because they were used to bigger nissim? That doesn't even make sense. And the bnei Bavel knew about it even though the bnei EY didn't? Where did they get this secret source of knowledge that the bnei EY were not privy to? Maybe he means the bnei EY knew about it but didn't think the neis itself was such a big deal, so didn't mention it.
I think he’s saying that because they didn’t see it as as big of a deal at the time, it was summarily forgotten later on and was never viewed as the impetus for the holiday. In contrast to bavel where they always viewed it as a big deal.
You don’t need to buy the theory, but the omission of this part of the story in many sources is a valid point of discussion and indicates that the neis of the oil wasn’t necessarily the whole reason for חנוכה.
IIRC Rav Moshe Shternbuch, no maskil you’d agree, theorizes that originally only יחידים lit menorah and only generations later did Chazal decide to be mesaken it for everyone.
Ok, then he doesn't need to say they forgot it, they just didn't mention it because they didn't think it was a big deal.
I also don't think the oil was the whole reason. To the contrary, I believe the main reason was the victory. The oil was the impetus to make it a special celebration. My point is that if Chazal had a mesorah about the reason for Chanukah, they are more reliable than the Book of Maccabees. We can trust their oral Mesorah like in everything else. If you think there is a machlokes in Chazal themselves, that's a different story.
I remember seeing that piece from Rav Shternbuch and will try to look at it again. But if I recall, he is coming from the lashon of לשנה אחרת and doesn't mean centuries later.
I don’t remember exactly how he says it. I think Rav Yehoshua מקוטנא or something like that says that in was only after the churban that they enacted it. He’s medayik it in the Rambam.
It’s great to trust Chazal over a contemporary account of events, it’s even better if they can be reconciled.
בית שמאי ובית הלל argue about it, so although they were technically still split after the churban, like ר אליעזר ורבי עקיבא, it seems most מחלוקת בית שמאי ובית הלל were referred to this way in the earlier years.
I think his point is simply that the המון עם was not focusing on that nes and Chazal were the ones to single out how special it was. Case in point that Josephus knew it was a festival of lights but not sure why. It may have also been overlooked by the Rabbis of EY, as not being the reason for the takana. However, the victory still only explains why we have הלל והודאה but not lighting the menora. There has to be some connection here, so if bnei EY lit candles they had to have had a reason.
To me this vort is chanukah basics: what, in fact, was the big deal about the neis of the oil lasting, if the ner maaravi lasted extra long on a daily basis? Many meforshim explain, each in their own terminologies, that actually the ner maaravi, which was a symbol "שהשכינה שורה בישראל" - shechina, the gaon in the beginning of shir hashirim explains that this refers to Hashem's specific hashgacha over klal yisroel (aka His love) - this neis of the ner maaravi stopped after Shimon hatzadik (father of yochanan kohen gadol) passed away. Post that era we live in a world with no miracles. A world of darkness. A world of choshech. But Hashem gave us one last hug and kiss, one last neis to show that even when we can't see it, the Shechina is still around in the darkness. And that is one is the primary messages of chanukah.
Rav Chaim Shmuelevitz compared the story to a boy who falls in the mud and can't get up. He lies there for an hour in the cold till his mother finds him. She takes him home, bathes him, dresses him, puts him by the fire with something to eat. Then she gives him a kiss to show she loves him.
Thanks for posting this link. I was going to mention that I'm sure this topic has been thoroughly hashed out in various forums le'minayhem. Unlikely anything new will be said by anyone here at this point. Now we just need to wait another few hours for Harav RKZ in EY to weigh in with his הערות והארות to shed light on this matter which so many have made light of.
"Finally, there was another Jew who famously rejected the Oral Tradition of the Rabbis, and who has a rather different winter-time holiday in his memory"
This is a subject that I'm very interested in and I strongly doubt that the actual historical character that "Jesus" was based on did reject the Oral Tradition. In fact, there are numerous places in the Gospels where it is made quite clear that Jesus accepted the authority of the Pharisees on matters of halacha; he was just frustrated with their refusal to accept his apocalyptic worldview and claims of kingship. Jesus hated were the Sadducees and the Herodians but had a grudging respect for the Pharisees.
Now Paul on the other hand, I agree that he rejected the Oral Tradition. Which is why James (Jesus's brother) and Peter (Jesus's best friend) hated his guts.
I think there is some truth to what you are saying. Interestingly, reb tzadok of Lublin says that yeshu (who he refers to as "oso haish," ”that man")'s downfall was due to a level of fake holiness and piety which was mistaken (even by himself) for godliness. It was a level of true character perfection and self discipline in which he mastered control of his bodily inclinations. To me that was a shocking intuition and insight into the nature of the struggles of old. (he includes in this list shabesai tzvi as well, also an interesting take.) But at the end of the day he did go of the deep end and was unequivocally considered evil and completely rejected the mainstream rabbinic authorities. He was deemed by the rabbis to be a meisis and mediach, an instigator of idol worship.
Zichron won't like me saying this, but Berel Wien concedes he has no idea who Jesus is in Jewish literature. The Yaavetz in a few places says there were two with that name. RABBI IRONS suggests he was בן סטדא in the gemara but not Yeshu Hanotzri who was too early in history. Keep in mind that Jesus was a common name then, no different than todays "Shua". Keep in mind there is less historical evidence for the whole story mentioned in the Gospels than יוסף מוקר שבת.
Daniel T. Unterbrink his his book <i>The Three Messiahs</i> makes an extremely convincing case that "Jesus" was actually the "Judas the Galilean" who was mentioned by Josephus. Unterbrink claims that the name "Jesus", which translates into "savior" was actually a nickname, just like Simon had the nickname "Peter" (which translates into "Rock" or "Rocky").
If you read the book, the case is pretty overwhelming.
True, the braisa was written later. But I believe it is based on an oral tradition that goes back to the times of the Chashmonaim, just like the rest of the Torah sheBaal Peh is based on early oral traditions.
Fine. But then the fact that he lived 200 years later is not a relevant argument. You would trust chazal even if Josephus lived at the same time as the chanukah story.
Josephus vs. Chazal does not give Josephus the advantage, because he was not an eyewitness.
All we can go by is the trustworthiness of those telling us the traditions. Chazal were operating on a basis of כל השוכח דבר אחד ממשנתו חייב מיתה, people were very careful to get it right. Mistakes happened, discrepancies crept in, but the vehemence of the arguments shows how important it was for them to get it right. In a case where we do not find any arguments, we can be quite sure that there was no counter-tradition. Josephus had no such scruples.
"Mistakes happened, discrepancies crept in, but the vehemence of the arguments shows how important it was for them to get it right."
I'm not sure what you're trying to say with this. If a braisa says it happened, it definitely happened, unless it didn't?
"Why would someone choose Josephus over Chazal?"
The question isn't about choosing. This isn't a psak halacha. The question is how to reconstruct what did or didn't happen in the beis ha'mikdash at a specific time in a specific place. The way we generally do that regarding any other historical claim is by assembling as many contemporaneous accounts as possible. If there aren't any, we move to next best, and so on. In some cases there won't be anything conclusive either way.
Look, if you want to say that chazal said, end of story, I won't argue with you. Just don't pretend that you're doing historical analysis of any sort.
He was speaking to a goyish audience. They can tolerate miraculous underdog turnabout victories and respect the Jew for his military prowess (after all, despite being beaten, they gave Rome a lot of grief in the process), but not open miracles in fairly contemporary times of just 2-300 years prior.
And he was a Tzadoki and am haararetz.
He was an unreliable bearer of the mesorah, at best.
You tell me. What makes the call easy for Slifkin is that he doesn't keep his torment to himself but loudly spreads it far and wide. He's WORSE than a hater of Hashem, who seethes quietly. I don't know enough about Josephus to make the same call.
There actually is a very early work that clearly mentions the miracle of the oil. All of these people who wish to re-invent the Chanukah story ignore it because it does not fit their narrative. The book called Megilas Antiyochus clearly mentions the miracle of the oil. It is not clear who wrote this book, but the same is true of the books of the Macabees. Why is Macabees a valid source, but not Megilas Antiyochus?
In the Middle Ages, many communities had the custom of actually reading Megilas Antiyochus aloud in Shul. Although its author remains unknown, this book is 'one of ours'.
There was nothing there to explain why this is treated as a serious source. Someone claimed that it contradicts the Book of Macabees and Josephus. That is not a valid reason. we wan to know why Macabees is treated as more authoratative then the Megilas Antiyochus. Just because another source says something different, is not a reason why this source is disregarded.
I agree with you. The Baraisa cited in the gemara is enough.
I was just wondering why those who cite the book of Macabees as 'proof' against chazal seem to totally ignore Megilas Antiyochus. It is clear that it is a very early work, dating at least to the times of the Tanaim, and it seems to have the approval of our sages. It is cited by the Behag, R. Saadiah Gaon, and Tos. Rid mentions a minhag of reading it in the shuls. The book of Macabbees was considered from the ספרים חיצוניים. So much so, that the original was lost. It survives only in Greek translations!
"Similarly, it is entirely possible that there were those who disputed the veracity of the miracle of the oil even on the very day it happened, but we would trust our Sages who transmitted the Oral Tradition over such cynics. Either way, it is clear that the aforementioned authors didn’t grasp the idea of Chanukah as well as our Sages."
Not sure what this is supposed to mean. My understanding is that some of the maskilim (at least the moderate ones) understood the story was originally intended by the authors of the braisa to be taken something along the lines of the ashmedai story in gittin. https://www.sefaria.org/sheets/186384.4?lang=bi&with=all&lang2=en It's not a matter of trusting or not. It's a question about whether it was intended literally or not. (Note that I'm not interested in debating whether such a view is kefira or not. My point is simply to clarify the content of the belief asserted.)
I explain why I think the comparison to Ashmadai is implausible, towards the beginning of the post.
What I meant by that line is that if people were disputing the miracle from the very beginning, it would be even more understandable why the author of Maccabees doesn't mention it.
You don't really explain it as much as assert it. There's no reason why the actual historical veracity of the neis is necessary for chanukah to be binding on us. The reason why we light the menorah is because chazal mandated to do so. וְקָבְעוּ שְׁמוֹנַת יְמֵי חֲנֻכָּה שְׁמוֹנָה אֵלּוּ לְהוֹדוֹת וּלְהַלֵּל לְשִׁמְךָ הַגָּדוֹל. If the backstory of why they mandated it turned out to be that they were celebrating the military victory of the chashmonaim, hanairos ha'lalau and al hanissim would read exactly the same way as they do. כְּדֵי לְהוֹדוֹת וּלְהַלֵל לְשִׁמְךָ הַגָּדוֹל,
I mean, you could say whatever you want. You could say the historical veracity of the Makkos is not necessary for Pesach to be binding on us. After all, many things in the Chumash are non literal, like the talking snake, etc.The Gemara clearly feels that that Chanukah is based on this historical event. Vs. anonymous outside sources that we don't trust nearly as much as Chazal.
"The Gemara clearly feels that that Chanukah is based on this historical event. Vs. anonymous outside sources that we don't trust nearly as much as Chazal."
So just to be clear, you're insisting that the braisa is literal- and describing a historical event- on religious grounds? Please answer yes or no. And if yes, why bother with books of maccabees or Josephus at all?
I'm not sure what you mean by religious grounds. I don't differentiate between the truthfulness of religious historical beliefs and secular historical beliefs. I am insisting that the Amoraim and all the Rishonim understood the braisa better than Shaul Shapira. In addition, I think the nature of the story itself makes it clear it was literal, see my comment to Leib above. It is still valuable to reconcile that with other historical sources that we that we consider to be generally reliable. And in this case, unlike, say, the Mabul, it's not a particularly difficult challenge.
"I'm not sure what you mean by religious grounds."
What I mean is that your entire religious identity would unravel if it were determined that the event never occurred. (I don't say that in any pejorative sense. I feel similarly about mattan torah.)
"I don't differentiate between the truthfulness of religious historical beliefs and secular historical beliefs. "
Maybe not in theory. But in practice you certainly do. You would never worry about the consequences of discovering that eg the Boston tea party wasn't really a historical thing. There's a reason why you have such a visceral reaction to claims doubting the historicity of the neis of the oil.
"I am insisting that the Amoraim and all the Rishonim understood the braisa better than Shaul Shapira."
That's not a particularly high bar to cross....
The problem is that the rishonim and amoraim don't seem to be aware of the issues arising from Josephus or the book of maccabees. [1] I am. That isn't some great accomplishment or sign of greatness on my part. It's simply a reality of the resources at my disposal in the year 2023 CE as opposed to the amoraim and rishonim living in 1023 or 523.
"It is still valuable to reconcile that with other historical sources that we that we consider to be generally reliable. And in this case, unlike, say, the Mabul, it's not a particularly difficult challenge."
Fair enough. I disagree on how well your reconciliation works, but I take your overall point.
[1] If you have sources which discuss them, I'd love to see them.
The Gemara knew that they lit Chanuka lights at the time of the Beis Hamikdash.
Bar-Haim is a simpleton. He is not fully responsible for the words that spill out of his mouth. There were obviously no special-ed classes in the school he attended, and his education was severely stunted.
I know he opposes kabbalah, demands mandatory military service for charedim, crticises certain minhagim and wants in current times a smaller role for talmud bavli, but isn't his insistence on talmud yerushalmi pretty reasonable, considering that jews are now in eretz hakodesh? Are really all these minhagim that originiated in a european context necessary?
He also talks a lot about the differences between yerushalmi and bavli. Are his points regarding that false?
Rafael, I cannot get over the fact that you are a Bosnian Muslim. Are you sure?? This comment makes you sound like you are mamish part of the tribe! L'choira you know more than most of those farshtinkineh rationalists, maskim?
(Not sure if you speak Yeshivish yet but wouldn't put it past you)
Machon Shilo's slogan is, after all, "For those who dare to think." Maybe Rafael came for the slogan and stayed to learn about his heterodox (vis a vis charedi hashkafa) views?
Rafael, regarding European minhagim, I agree. Rescinding the Ashkenazi ban on polygamy would be a good first step (:-).
After all, the baba sali had 3 wives. That was 50 years ago, so not like a millenium ago.
What I immediately noticed is bar hayims hebrew pronounication. His hebrew sounds like Arabic (deep h, kh, distincition between ayin and aleph, distincition between k and q and lack of tz sound). And the machon shilo logo has paleohebrew script.
Wow, that was a rapid response!
Very well presented. As being from the few frum people still not banned on RJ, I was trying to figure out from these guys how Chazal means anything to them, but from 4 guys, couldn't get a straight answer. It's all "don't you know?" "still in elementary school?" but no one can actually explain why they follow Chazal in halacha, but in agada they don't even get the benefit of the doubt. "The sages erred in regard to the suns path right?" "R"A ben Harambam doesn't believe in any agada" and other stuff like that.
Besides for what I said in the post that the neis of the oil is directly linked to the mitzvah of Ner Chanukah, there is a clear difference between an aggadah about something supernatural which is not presented as a neis, and one which is presented as a neis. A neis is not just a supernatural occurence, but is a sign from God to the onlookers, like the makkos. The stories about Ashmodai, Rabba Bar Bar Chana, and Vashti's tail are not a sign from God and are not presented that way. Therefore it makes sense to explain them non-literally, and may make more sense than explaining them kepshuto. The pure oil lighting for eight days is an obvious sign from God and is presented that way in the Gemara.
Agreed, I believe that distinction is made by the Rambam himself, for sure RABHR.
Are you aware that the rishonim/acharonim on Nach consistently bring peshotim completely different from the gemorroh? There is a mesorah that we are not bound to follow aggadic explanations of pesukim. Obviously the precise geder is unclear. That is of course not saying we are not bound to follow the reason of neis shemen. Different things.
Are we obliged to believe that all the Rabbi Channinah ban Dosah miracle stories are literal? The maharal states clearly Vashti did not grow a tail (contrary to the gemorroh). I think it says it means she put on a bit of weight. The reasoning is straightforward, if she had grown a tail that would be a neis niglah, and purim is not supposed to have that.
It's not as black and white as you make out.
I guarantee you, Leib is well aware 😂
I am aware of all of that, now let me tell you something you are not aware of. RA ben harambam gives clear gedarim. He splits pshatim into 2, and splits agada in general into 5. And no one on RJ knows the difference, except maybe, sit down for this one, slifkin. I don't know what made you think I think it's black and white.
R. Meiselman in Torah, Chazal, and Science, discusses at length how his surviving body of work was corrupted to further a rationalist agenda. I know how Slifkin has slandered the book and the author. I don't care.
I have read the Feldheim edition of Sefer HaMaspik. If only the entire sefer were available! It is clear that where we are certain of the provenance of his writings, his fidelity to our mesorah is total.
BTW, Tycho Brahe said the sages were correct about the construction of the heavens, and not the goyim, and they were wrong to concede.
I didn't say I live my whole life based on RABHR. But if anyone wants to discredit chazal based on him, they need to know what he says, since anything further than that is beyond the pail.
Furthermore, almost everything he says there one can find in the Rambam in הקדמה לחלק, just more concisely. There is no reason to assume RABHR didn't hold that way, regardless of the legitimacy of the manuscript.
I know about Rabbi Meiselman's book, wasn't so convinced. Anyway, prior to writing it, meaning for the first 70 years of his life, he assumed it was legit, as he said in a shiur in 2006.
I told me many times this is not my subject, but it makes no difference if you say they were wrong for conceding, that means the sages could be wrong too!
See משה מיימון's sefer on the maamar of Reb Avrohom ben Harambam.
Also, see what הגהמ (same as the above) writes here
https://forum.otzar.org/viewtopic.php?t=27074
IIRC, רבינו תם said it before him...
Regarding רבי אברהם בן הרמב"ם, we indeed have a small portion of his ספר.
The maharal is not contrary to the gemara. He explains the gemara
Where is this Maharal?
אור חדש פ"א
ובברייתא תנא שבא גבריאל ועשה לה זנב פירוש זנב הנאמר בכאן שעשה לה מלאך כבידות הטבע כי הזנב הוא כבידות הבעל חי והוא תוספות הנגרר אחר הבעל חי ולפיכך לא רצתה לבא משום הזנב הזה כלומר כבידות הטבע שהיה לה באותה שעה שכמה פעמים יש לאדם כבידות הטבע ומבטל דבר זה תנועת האדם שאינו רוצה לקום ממקומו וכו' ע"ש באריכות
LOL. Test translated כבידות הטבע in Maharal as extra weight! As if a tail appearing suddenly is any less miraculous. BTW, even if chazal are kepshuto, (like a growth in that area) I have no idea where people got this from that it was a furry one.
Extra weight is far more b'derech hatevah. But it seems it meant she felt like extra weight and couldn't moce. Not clear what ckveidus hatevah, but my memory isn't bad considering I haven't looked at it for 30 years. LOL all you like, but that is silly nit-picking.
Quite. The gemoroh says she grew a tail. The Maharal says she did not. Only with the most convoluted kvetching can you say with straight face that is not a contradiction, only an 'explanation".
The whole life's mission of the maharal is never to think any of the sages erred in anything, even if it means explaining their words with no simple meaning. Quite the worst source you want to bring when I brought up how people discredit chazal on agada completely!
Never said anything about 'erred'. Completely irrelevant.
Um... I started this whole thread with mentioning how I was discussing with a few kofrim who say that chazal have no authority on anything but halacha.
you should learn reb avraham ben harambam's agadah kuntreis, or moreh nevuchim where they explain that chazal were clearly not being literal and only the thickest of people will take it that way. ever learned the rabba bar bar chana stories? are those "obviously" literal as well? did a frog the size of a city sit on a branch? basics, man
Clearly that is the case when there is a clear exaggeration. No doubt about that.
That doesn’t mean that vashti's tail is likewise untrue, does it?
There are plenty of people who will give you "the look" if you say Avrohom never smashed his dad's idols, or survived nimrod's furnace. Or Yackov's neck never turned to iron. It's all just aggadatic to demonstrate Hashem's protection.
point is the maharal is not arguing with the gemara. he is interpreting it. just like Hashem's eyes are (obviously) not physical. i was calling you out on your error
How is that remotely similar to Vashti growing a tail?
There is a quote from the words of the Maharal above. As can be seen clearly, he says that he is explaining the gemara. He does so in a non literal way, but he himself says he is explaining the gemara.
Kvetching is not necessary here, reading the actual words inside is necessary.
That sort of word salad might work well verbally in the BH when trying to bamboozle a chavrusoh, but in writing, it is complete nonsense.
The gemoroh says she grew a tail. The Maharal says she did not.
It's not that difficult.
Can I reinterpret chazal about Avrohom in the kivshon ha'esh as he was in general physical danger for his beliefs and was saved. I'm not contradicting, I'm just explaining, right?
Test, you really need to hear yourself. You give the weirdest word salads 🥗 when responding to people who are saying things that make perfect sense.
A child hearing an adult sentence, not understanding how the words flow thinks that he's hearing a word salad 🥗
I feel bad for your chavrusas. They were probably meaning great points but you kept telling them to stop bamboozling with their word salads 🥗
The Maharal SAYS that he is explaining the gemara. You think you know better than him what he himself wrote?!?!
I challenge you to answer that question using only 1 word, either yes, no, unsure. Don't accuse me of word salads, don't obfuscate the issue by asking another question.
No I didn't. What is your point?
Hallel was mentioned in two maccabees - they celebrated in the manner of the festival of booths, which presumably includes Hallel.
As it says : Therefore, carrying 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.
Hymns of Thanksgiving is presumably Hallel.
Good point. But does that mean there is a contradiction between 1 Maccabees and 2 Maccabees? 😉
There are a number of contradictions, yes. The pshat that they kept sukkos late though seems likely, based on Shitas Beis Shamai on Kneged Paros Hachag. I would still correct your original post, as the claim of Hallel seems incorrect.
On second thought, I'm not sure. It says they said Hallel that year, but is that included in the takana for the following years -"They decreed by public edict, ratified by vote, that the whole nation of the Jews should observe these days every year"? And if so, did they also decree by public edict to use lulavim on Chanukah? Presumably not (unless author 2 Maccabees really thinks they did), so what exactly they decreed by public edict is vague. It could mean Hallel, or it could be just "a festival of joy and gladness" like 1 Maccabees.
We presumably know the public edict based on our practices. Seemingly Hallel and not Lulav (which makes sense, because we use our lulav once a year but say Hallel many times).
I would venture that originally, they kept sukkos late, and the nes shemen showed them that Hashem approved of their actions (just like an earlier nes where they celebrated an early chanukas habayis and ate on Yom kippur, which showed Hashem approved of their actions). But the nes shemen was a minor celebration in the scheme of things. Once Chazal came around, they reemphasized the original nes shemen for reasons of their own (be it because they lived in an environment where celebrating rebellion would not have been wise, or because, then, like today, people were using the Maccabees as poor role models, or perhaps for kabbalistic reasons of their own).
I don't think it was ever a celebration of rebellion per se in these sources. In all three sources I bring, it is a celebration of the rededication of the Bais Hamikdash. In Al Hanisim we emphasize the victory, but Chazal were never mevatel that, so it doesn't seem it was a problem.
I would say that Chazal were giving us a deeper insight into why they instituted Chanukah, which either these authors were ignorant of, or as Lou Yaskilu brings above, didn't find significant enough to mention, since there were similar nissim every day.
Regarding the author of the book of Macabees
ר׳ יצחק חריטן
המחבר וזמנו
פרטים ברורים אודות המחבר וזמנו המדויק אינם ידועים, אך נראה שהיה מיהודי ארץ ישראל", ממחנה הפרושים הנאמנים לחז"ל (שהיוו את רוב העם)", והוא ערך את ספרו בשנים הראשונות להנהגתו של יוחנן הורקנוס", סמוך לשנת ג"א תרל"א לב"ע (921 לפני הסה"ג)". הכותב סמך על דברים ששמע מפי בני דור המרד, וגם השתמש בתעודות ומכתבים מקוריים שנשמרו בארכיון החשמונאי'', ויש מי שהראה פנים לסברא שבצעירותו נמנה המחבר עצמו על חילו של יהודה המקבי והשתתף בגופו בחלק מהקרבות המתוארים בספריי.
בעבר ביקשו חלק מהחוקרים להציג את המחבר כצדוקי, אך דבריהם דחויים לגמרי, שכן בתקופה שבה נכתב הספר היו הצדוקים מרוחקים מן השלטון ושונאים את בית חשמונאי, ולעומתם מעריץ הכותב את החשמונאים הראשונים ללא גבול ורואה רק אותם כמושיעי התורה, העם והארץ. אפשר שניתן להביא סמך נוסף להשתייכותו של המחבר לקהל היראים, מהעובדה שהוא מקפיד לא לנקוב בפירוש בשם ה', ובשל כך הוא מתבטא באופן עמום במקצת כמו נקרא לשמים, אם יחפץ בנר, "הללו לשמים כי טוב כי לעולם חסדו', 'ויברכו לשמים אשר הצליח להם'. יתכן שזהירות זו נובעת מתוך הידור בקיום תקנת חז"ל לבל יזכירו את שם האל בשטרות (עיין במגילת תענית לג' בתשרי ובר"ה יח ע"ב), תקנה שהצדוקים התנגדו לה, כפי שמשתמע בסוף מסכת ידים (פ"ד מ"ח).
This post isn't accounting for the fact that the miracle of the oil is not mentioned in many Rabbinic sources as well
see here for further discussion
https://forum.otzar.org/viewtopic.php?f=24&t=37932
רב חריטן in his amazing edition of ספר מקבים says that they were simply unaware of it
התשובה הנכונה היא כמ"ש ר' נתן פריד "חכמי א"י מימי התלמודים והמדרשים לא ידעו כלל על נס פך שמן וכן לא נתקיימה גירסא כזאת בברייתא דמגילת תענית שהיתה בידם! הברייתא במגילת תענית בדפוסים המספרת על נס פך שמן, והמופיעה בסוגית חנוכה במסכת שבת דילן, אינה אלא ברייתא בבילת שנשתרבבה שם... ברם לא נודעה לחכמי א"י ואף לא לסופרי קורות העיתים הקדומים... שכל אותן המקורות הקודמים החל מספרי החשמונאים וכלה בפייטני א"י ומקצת מפייטני אירופה הקדמונים לא ידעו כלל שאמנם היה נס בשמן. לשיטתם נקבע חג חנוכה לזכר הנצחונות והנסים שאירעו לבני חשמונאי במלחמותיהם גמד היוונים."
מובן שהדבר אומר דרשני,מדוע אכן נתעלם נס זה מבני ציון היקרים? ר' נתן פריד רמז בקיצור נמרץ לפרש הענין: שלא הדגישו נס פך השמן משום שנס דומה היה מעשה בכל יום, בנר מערבי שבמנורת בית המקדש. ויש להרחיב מעט את הביאור על פי מש"כ הג"ר יצחק ישעיה וייס " בני ארץ ישראל היו מרגלים בנר המערבי ובעשר ניסים שנעשו יום יום בבית המקדש, ולא התרשמו במיוחד מנס פך השמן. מאידך, גזירות הדת והרדיפות הקשות תקפו עליהם אחרי זמן ארוך של עצמאות רוחנית,- משאירע הנס והם גברו על האויבים הדגישו רק את התשועה שהיו בה חידוש ומשמעות עבורם, מסרת גבורים ביד חלשים, ורבים ביד מעטים כו', ואילו נס פך השמן כמעט שלא צויין על ידם, וזכרו הלך ונשתכח מאתם. ולעומתם בני בבל שסבלו הרבה מהשליטים המתחבלים וחשו תמיד כיצד שומר הקב"ה על כבשתו הנתונה בין ע' זאבים, לא ראו את נס נצחון על היוונים כסיבת מספקת לקבוע חג מחמתו, ולפיכך שאלו מאי חנוכה, והשיבו שחנוכה נתקן בשל פך שמן המועט שהדליקו ממנו ח' ימים, דבר שהיה פלא בלתי רגיל כלל לעיניהם.
His answer makes no sense. The bnei EY didn't *know* about it because they were used to bigger nissim? That doesn't even make sense. And the bnei Bavel knew about it even though the bnei EY didn't? Where did they get this secret source of knowledge that the bnei EY were not privy to? Maybe he means the bnei EY knew about it but didn't think the neis itself was such a big deal, so didn't mention it.
I think he’s saying that because they didn’t see it as as big of a deal at the time, it was summarily forgotten later on and was never viewed as the impetus for the holiday. In contrast to bavel where they always viewed it as a big deal.
You don’t need to buy the theory, but the omission of this part of the story in many sources is a valid point of discussion and indicates that the neis of the oil wasn’t necessarily the whole reason for חנוכה.
IIRC Rav Moshe Shternbuch, no maskil you’d agree, theorizes that originally only יחידים lit menorah and only generations later did Chazal decide to be mesaken it for everyone.
Ok, then he doesn't need to say they forgot it, they just didn't mention it because they didn't think it was a big deal.
I also don't think the oil was the whole reason. To the contrary, I believe the main reason was the victory. The oil was the impetus to make it a special celebration. My point is that if Chazal had a mesorah about the reason for Chanukah, they are more reliable than the Book of Maccabees. We can trust their oral Mesorah like in everything else. If you think there is a machlokes in Chazal themselves, that's a different story.
I remember seeing that piece from Rav Shternbuch and will try to look at it again. But if I recall, he is coming from the lashon of לשנה אחרת and doesn't mean centuries later.
It’s in מועדים וזמנים ב קמט. He’s trying to say that when the beis hamikdash was around נר על כל פתח ביתו wasn’t necessary.
I don’t remember exactly how he says it. I think Rav Yehoshua מקוטנא or something like that says that in was only after the churban that they enacted it. He’s medayik it in the Rambam.
It’s great to trust Chazal over a contemporary account of events, it’s even better if they can be reconciled.
בית שמאי ובית הלל argue about it, so although they were technically still split after the churban, like ר אליעזר ורבי עקיבא, it seems most מחלוקת בית שמאי ובית הלל were referred to this way in the earlier years.
They would be talking about those who were mehader to light the menorah from the beginning, according to the above theory.
I think his point is simply that the המון עם was not focusing on that nes and Chazal were the ones to single out how special it was. Case in point that Josephus knew it was a festival of lights but not sure why. It may have also been overlooked by the Rabbis of EY, as not being the reason for the takana. However, the victory still only explains why we have הלל והודאה but not lighting the menora. There has to be some connection here, so if bnei EY lit candles they had to have had a reason.
To me this vort is chanukah basics: what, in fact, was the big deal about the neis of the oil lasting, if the ner maaravi lasted extra long on a daily basis? Many meforshim explain, each in their own terminologies, that actually the ner maaravi, which was a symbol "שהשכינה שורה בישראל" - shechina, the gaon in the beginning of shir hashirim explains that this refers to Hashem's specific hashgacha over klal yisroel (aka His love) - this neis of the ner maaravi stopped after Shimon hatzadik (father of yochanan kohen gadol) passed away. Post that era we live in a world with no miracles. A world of darkness. A world of choshech. But Hashem gave us one last hug and kiss, one last neis to show that even when we can't see it, the Shechina is still around in the darkness. And that is one is the primary messages of chanukah.
Wonderful. I add in my שיעורים לחנוכה that it was a also a sign that מלחמת החשמונאים was לרצון ה' and was a נס. (Based on מהר"ל נר מצוה עמ' כב)
Rav Chaim Shmuelevitz compared the story to a boy who falls in the mud and can't get up. He lies there for an hour in the cold till his mother finds him. She takes him home, bathes him, dresses him, puts him by the fire with something to eat. Then she gives him a kiss to show she loves him.
Thanks for posting this link. I was going to mention that I'm sure this topic has been thoroughly hashed out in various forums le'minayhem. Unlikely anything new will be said by anyone here at this point. Now we just need to wait another few hours for Harav RKZ in EY to weigh in with his הערות והארות to shed light on this matter which so many have made light of.
Two threads were linked already, but I'm linking all relevant threads
https://forum.otzar.org/viewtopic.php?f=24&t=24709
https://forum.otzar.org/viewtopic.php?f=24&t=37932
https://forum.otzar.org/viewtopic.php?f=24&t=30843
https://forum.otzar.org/viewtopic.php?f=24&t=30733
https://forum.otzar.org/viewtopic.php?f=24&t=58082
https://forum.otzar.org/viewtopic.php?f=24&t=61070
https://forum.otzar.org/viewtopic.php?f=24&t=61062
https://forum.otzar.org/viewtopic.php?f=24&t=25067
https://forum.otzar.org/viewtopic.php?f=24&t=48500
https://forum.otzar.org/viewtopic.php?f=7&t=61110&hilit=%D7%9E%D7%9B%D7%91%D7%99%D7%9D
https://forum.otzar.org/viewtopic.php?f=24&t=7259&hilit=%D7%9E%D7%9B%D7%91%D7%99%D7%9D
https://forum.otzar.org/viewtopic.php?f=7&t=37738&hilit=%D7%97%D7%A8%D7%99%D7%98%D7%9F
"Finally, there was another Jew who famously rejected the Oral Tradition of the Rabbis, and who has a rather different winter-time holiday in his memory"
This is a subject that I'm very interested in and I strongly doubt that the actual historical character that "Jesus" was based on did reject the Oral Tradition. In fact, there are numerous places in the Gospels where it is made quite clear that Jesus accepted the authority of the Pharisees on matters of halacha; he was just frustrated with their refusal to accept his apocalyptic worldview and claims of kingship. Jesus hated were the Sadducees and the Herodians but had a grudging respect for the Pharisees.
Now Paul on the other hand, I agree that he rejected the Oral Tradition. Which is why James (Jesus's brother) and Peter (Jesus's best friend) hated his guts.
I think there is some truth to what you are saying. Interestingly, reb tzadok of Lublin says that yeshu (who he refers to as "oso haish," ”that man")'s downfall was due to a level of fake holiness and piety which was mistaken (even by himself) for godliness. It was a level of true character perfection and self discipline in which he mastered control of his bodily inclinations. To me that was a shocking intuition and insight into the nature of the struggles of old. (he includes in this list shabesai tzvi as well, also an interesting take.) But at the end of the day he did go of the deep end and was unequivocally considered evil and completely rejected the mainstream rabbinic authorities. He was deemed by the rabbis to be a meisis and mediach, an instigator of idol worship.
Zichron won't like me saying this, but Berel Wien concedes he has no idea who Jesus is in Jewish literature. The Yaavetz in a few places says there were two with that name. RABBI IRONS suggests he was בן סטדא in the gemara but not Yeshu Hanotzri who was too early in history. Keep in mind that Jesus was a common name then, no different than todays "Shua". Keep in mind there is less historical evidence for the whole story mentioned in the Gospels than יוסף מוקר שבת.
Daniel T. Unterbrink his his book <i>The Three Messiahs</i> makes an extremely convincing case that "Jesus" was actually the "Judas the Galilean" who was mentioned by Josephus. Unterbrink claims that the name "Jesus", which translates into "savior" was actually a nickname, just like Simon had the nickname "Peter" (which translates into "Rock" or "Rocky").
If you read the book, the case is pretty overwhelming.
Interesting.
Tosfos says 'ein zu yeishu hanotztri' in gittin. Long before the ya'avetz its clear there was more than one.
Yet despite the uncertainty about his existence billions of people believe in him. Uncanny isn't it?
Yes but the name Yeshu isn't there and tos' doesn't say that that one had anything to do with Cristian's like the yavetz
I am not getting your second point.
" Josephus was Hellenist, born into a Sadducee family, and even worse, came two centuries after the events of Chanukah."
I'm pretty sure the braisa is even later.
True, the braisa was written later. But I believe it is based on an oral tradition that goes back to the times of the Chashmonaim, just like the rest of the Torah sheBaal Peh is based on early oral traditions.
Well then the same is true for Josephus. He didn't invent his history of the Jews. He relied on traditions too.
Yes, it is Josephus's oral tradition vs. Chazal's oral tradition. Easy choice.
Fine. But then the fact that he lived 200 years later is not a relevant argument. You would trust chazal even if Josephus lived at the same time as the chanukah story.
Josephus vs. Chazal does not give Josephus the advantage, because he was not an eyewitness.
All we can go by is the trustworthiness of those telling us the traditions. Chazal were operating on a basis of כל השוכח דבר אחד ממשנתו חייב מיתה, people were very careful to get it right. Mistakes happened, discrepancies crept in, but the vehemence of the arguments shows how important it was for them to get it right. In a case where we do not find any arguments, we can be quite sure that there was no counter-tradition. Josephus had no such scruples.
Why would someone choose Josephus over Chazal?
"Mistakes happened, discrepancies crept in, but the vehemence of the arguments shows how important it was for them to get it right."
I'm not sure what you're trying to say with this. If a braisa says it happened, it definitely happened, unless it didn't?
"Why would someone choose Josephus over Chazal?"
The question isn't about choosing. This isn't a psak halacha. The question is how to reconstruct what did or didn't happen in the beis ha'mikdash at a specific time in a specific place. The way we generally do that regarding any other historical claim is by assembling as many contemporaneous accounts as possible. If there aren't any, we move to next best, and so on. In some cases there won't be anything conclusive either way.
Look, if you want to say that chazal said, end of story, I won't argue with you. Just don't pretend that you're doing historical analysis of any sort.
Like that word scruples, has a nice ring. Never heard of it before.
Josephus was a liar, and should not be trusted.
However, here he is simply using מקבים א
Ok
He doesn't do logical arguments. You see, arguing in writing is much harder than orally bamboozling a chavrusoh.
He was speaking to a goyish audience. They can tolerate miraculous underdog turnabout victories and respect the Jew for his military prowess (after all, despite being beaten, they gave Rome a lot of grief in the process), but not open miracles in fairly contemporary times of just 2-300 years prior.
And he was a Tzadoki and am haararetz.
He was an unreliable bearer of the mesorah, at best.
"And he was a Tzadoki and am haararetz.
He was an unreliable bearer of the mesorah, at best."
Probably a Rabbeinu-Yonah-Certified-Hater-Of-Hashem too, amirite?
You tell me. What makes the call easy for Slifkin is that he doesn't keep his torment to himself but loudly spreads it far and wide. He's WORSE than a hater of Hashem, who seethes quietly. I don't know enough about Josephus to make the same call.
True in general, but here he is just using מקבים א
A שיעור that I gave once, related to some issues raised here
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=um4LGYZ6Fy4
There actually is a very early work that clearly mentions the miracle of the oil. All of these people who wish to re-invent the Chanukah story ignore it because it does not fit their narrative. The book called Megilas Antiyochus clearly mentions the miracle of the oil. It is not clear who wrote this book, but the same is true of the books of the Macabees. Why is Macabees a valid source, but not Megilas Antiyochus?
In the Middle Ages, many communities had the custom of actually reading Megilas Antiyochus aloud in Shul. Although its author remains unknown, this book is 'one of ours'.
It is not at all clear that Migilas Antiyochus is an early work.
http://forum.otzar.org/viewtopic.php?f=24&t=30843&sid=8a537cdc73f105cd838b26392cf93864
Do you have an embedded version of it? YouTube is blocked for me, and my guess is that I'm not the only one here like that.
Unfortunately, this is the only limk I have for it (I assume that you mean the link to my שיעור)
There was nothing there to explain why this is treated as a serious source. Someone claimed that it contradicts the Book of Macabees and Josephus. That is not a valid reason. we wan to know why Macabees is treated as more authoratative then the Megilas Antiyochus. Just because another source says something different, is not a reason why this source is disregarded.
The ברייתא in the בבלי is enough to teach us about נס פך השמן.
No need to use a much later source like מגילת אנטיוכוס
מקבים א was written a few years after the events (no more than 30-40 years after חנוכה)
I agree with you. The Baraisa cited in the gemara is enough.
I was just wondering why those who cite the book of Macabees as 'proof' against chazal seem to totally ignore Megilas Antiyochus. It is clear that it is a very early work, dating at least to the times of the Tanaim, and it seems to have the approval of our sages. It is cited by the Behag, R. Saadiah Gaon, and Tos. Rid mentions a minhag of reading it in the shuls. The book of Macabbees was considered from the ספרים חיצוניים. So much so, that the original was lost. It survives only in Greek translations!
No one (besides you) thinks it's an early work.
"Similarly, it is entirely possible that there were those who disputed the veracity of the miracle of the oil even on the very day it happened, but we would trust our Sages who transmitted the Oral Tradition over such cynics. Either way, it is clear that the aforementioned authors didn’t grasp the idea of Chanukah as well as our Sages."
Not sure what this is supposed to mean. My understanding is that some of the maskilim (at least the moderate ones) understood the story was originally intended by the authors of the braisa to be taken something along the lines of the ashmedai story in gittin. https://www.sefaria.org/sheets/186384.4?lang=bi&with=all&lang2=en It's not a matter of trusting or not. It's a question about whether it was intended literally or not. (Note that I'm not interested in debating whether such a view is kefira or not. My point is simply to clarify the content of the belief asserted.)
I explain why I think the comparison to Ashmadai is implausible, towards the beginning of the post.
What I meant by that line is that if people were disputing the miracle from the very beginning, it would be even more understandable why the author of Maccabees doesn't mention it.
You don't really explain it as much as assert it. There's no reason why the actual historical veracity of the neis is necessary for chanukah to be binding on us. The reason why we light the menorah is because chazal mandated to do so. וְקָבְעוּ שְׁמוֹנַת יְמֵי חֲנֻכָּה שְׁמוֹנָה אֵלּוּ לְהוֹדוֹת וּלְהַלֵּל לְשִׁמְךָ הַגָּדוֹל. If the backstory of why they mandated it turned out to be that they were celebrating the military victory of the chashmonaim, hanairos ha'lalau and al hanissim would read exactly the same way as they do. כְּדֵי לְהוֹדוֹת וּלְהַלֵל לְשִׁמְךָ הַגָּדוֹל,
עַל נִסֶּיךָ וְעַל נִפְלְאוֹתֶיךָ וְעַל יְשׁוּעָתֶךָ׃
I mean, you could say whatever you want. You could say the historical veracity of the Makkos is not necessary for Pesach to be binding on us. After all, many things in the Chumash are non literal, like the talking snake, etc.The Gemara clearly feels that that Chanukah is based on this historical event. Vs. anonymous outside sources that we don't trust nearly as much as Chazal.
"I mean, you could say whatever you want."
Right.
"You could say the historical veracity of the Makkos is not necessary for Pesach to be binding on us."
Right. I could say that. No idea why I would, though.
"After all, many things in the Chumash are non literal, like the talking snake, etc."
Or, purported angelic visits reinterpreted as happening in a dream.
https://irrationalistmodoxism.substack.com/p/the-art-of-the-rebuttal-part-1/comment/16486662
"The Gemara clearly feels that that Chanukah is based on this historical event. Vs. anonymous outside sources that we don't trust nearly as much as Chazal."
So just to be clear, you're insisting that the braisa is literal- and describing a historical event- on religious grounds? Please answer yes or no. And if yes, why bother with books of maccabees or Josephus at all?
I'm not sure what you mean by religious grounds. I don't differentiate between the truthfulness of religious historical beliefs and secular historical beliefs. I am insisting that the Amoraim and all the Rishonim understood the braisa better than Shaul Shapira. In addition, I think the nature of the story itself makes it clear it was literal, see my comment to Leib above. It is still valuable to reconcile that with other historical sources that we that we consider to be generally reliable. And in this case, unlike, say, the Mabul, it's not a particularly difficult challenge.
"I'm not sure what you mean by religious grounds."
What I mean is that your entire religious identity would unravel if it were determined that the event never occurred. (I don't say that in any pejorative sense. I feel similarly about mattan torah.)
"I don't differentiate between the truthfulness of religious historical beliefs and secular historical beliefs. "
Maybe not in theory. But in practice you certainly do. You would never worry about the consequences of discovering that eg the Boston tea party wasn't really a historical thing. There's a reason why you have such a visceral reaction to claims doubting the historicity of the neis of the oil.
"I am insisting that the Amoraim and all the Rishonim understood the braisa better than Shaul Shapira."
That's not a particularly high bar to cross....
The problem is that the rishonim and amoraim don't seem to be aware of the issues arising from Josephus or the book of maccabees. [1] I am. That isn't some great accomplishment or sign of greatness on my part. It's simply a reality of the resources at my disposal in the year 2023 CE as opposed to the amoraim and rishonim living in 1023 or 523.
"It is still valuable to reconcile that with other historical sources that we that we consider to be generally reliable. And in this case, unlike, say, the Mabul, it's not a particularly difficult challenge."
Fair enough. I disagree on how well your reconciliation works, but I take your overall point.
[1] If you have sources which discuss them, I'd love to see them.
Thank you for writing this. I laughed at the cruz of oil. For the text of the blessings according to the siddur Vilna, see my footnotes here: https://ishayirashashem.substack.com/p/part-1-boris-the-terrible-celebrates
The Gemara knew that they lit Chanuka lights at the time of the Beis Hamikdash.
Bar-Haim is a simpleton. He is not fully responsible for the words that spill out of his mouth. There were obviously no special-ed classes in the school he attended, and his education was severely stunted.
נרות חנוכה don't equal נס פך השמן
We know that נס פך השמן occurred because the גמרא tells us.
We would never know that from the מצוה itself.
After all, we don't light נרות שבת because of a נס but because it is a תקנת חכמים
So too נרות חנוכה.
Why do you think hes unlearned? Hes not necessarily orthodox but why a simpleton?
From his shiurim. He misunderstands the source material, stretches Sevaros until they are unrecognizable, and forgets clear Mekoros.
Bar hayim a kofer!? Quite harsh.
I know he opposes kabbalah, demands mandatory military service for charedim, crticises certain minhagim and wants in current times a smaller role for talmud bavli, but isn't his insistence on talmud yerushalmi pretty reasonable, considering that jews are now in eretz hakodesh? Are really all these minhagim that originiated in a european context necessary?
He also talks a lot about the differences between yerushalmi and bavli. Are his points regarding that false?
Rafael, I cannot get over the fact that you are a Bosnian Muslim. Are you sure?? This comment makes you sound like you are mamish part of the tribe! L'choira you know more than most of those farshtinkineh rationalists, maskim?
(Not sure if you speak Yeshivish yet but wouldn't put it past you)
Machon Shilo's slogan is, after all, "For those who dare to think." Maybe Rafael came for the slogan and stayed to learn about his heterodox (vis a vis charedi hashkafa) views?
Rafael, regarding European minhagim, I agree. Rescinding the Ashkenazi ban on polygamy would be a good first step (:-).
After all, the baba sali had 3 wives. That was 50 years ago, so not like a millenium ago.
What I immediately noticed is bar hayims hebrew pronounication. His hebrew sounds like Arabic (deep h, kh, distincition between ayin and aleph, distincition between k and q and lack of tz sound). And the machon shilo logo has paleohebrew script.
Baba Sali had 3 wives each in separate times. He didn’t marry in polygamy, rather his first wife sadly passed away, and his second as well.
His Hebrew is what many מדקדקים follow.
No need to change הלכות ומנהגים because of that.
Where?
the נצי"ב deals with the entire history of מסירת ולימוד תורה שבע"פ in his הקדמה to העמק שאלה
https://hebrewbooks.org/39101