[Avodah] chanukah and other things not in the Mishna

[Micha Berger]

On Sun, Dec 28, 2008 at 01:51:07PM +0200, Eli Turkel wrote:
: A discussion of why Chanukah and other topics are not in the Mishna
: see
: http://seforim.traditiononline.org/index.cfm

More permanent link:
http://seforim.traditiononline.org/index.cfm/2008/12/27/Eliezer-Brodt-The-Chanukah-Omission
or http://kitzur.com/a2ld

The blog entry assumes that Rebbe wrote down the mishnah. It seems from
Tosafos that they held the mishnah was composed/redacted by Rebbe, but
not actually written out physically until about the same time the gemara
was.

This is relevent WRT the answer I found compelling from our previous
discussions of this point, that Rebbe simply didn't include Chanukah
because there was already a code of its halakhos in Megillas Taanis.

Quoting:
> To clarify, in the standard Megilat Tannis there are two parts one
> written in Aramaic which are various fast days and one part written in
> Hebrew which includes a lengthier description of the topic. The Mahritz
> Chiyus and Radal say that the Aramaic part was written very early when
> it was not permissible to really write Torah Shel Bal Peh but at a later
> point when it was permitted to write than the Hebrew parts were added.
> Mahritz Chiyus says it was after the era of Rabenu Hakodesh. To
> clarify, in the standard Megilat Tannis there are two parts one
> written in Aramaic which are various fast days and one part written in
> Hebrew which includes a lengthier description of the topic. The
> Mahritz Chiyus and Radal say that the Aramaic part was written very
> early when it was not permissible to really write Torah Shel Bal Peh
> but at a later point when it was permitted to write than the Hebrew
> parts were added. Mahritz Chiyus says it was after the era of Rabenu
> Hakodesh.

1- Why would it be any better in Aramaic?

2- According to Tosafos, none of this was actually in writing. The times
in question are those of redaction. Therefore, there is no motivation to
use anything but straightforward Hebrew.

BTW, to continue:
> Indeed, the Gedolim who first suggested that MT is the reason why Rabbenu
> Hakodesh did not include it in Mishnayois were not aware of this point
> that it was written at two different time periods. However R. D. Horowitz
> in an article in Haples turns the historical difficultly on its head
> when he argues that the person who wrote those Hebrew parts was Rabbenu
> Hakodesh. [8] In fact, in one of the editions of Megilat Tannis it says
> on the Shar Blat Megilat Tannis which is Mesechet Chanukah (the original
> edition with the Pirush ha-Eshel). The problem with R. Horowitz point
> is that it seems most likely that it was later than Rabbenu Hakodesh.[9]

> [8] Mahritz Chiyus, vol. 1, pp. 153-54; Radal, Kadmos Hazohar, p. 269.
> Haples vol. one pg. 182.

> [9] The time period of the MT and the two versions (and the nature of
> the work in general) have been discussed by many just to cite some ...


Tir'u baTov!
-Micha

-- 
Micha Berger                 Time flies...
micha at aishdas.org                    ... but you're the pilot.
http://www.aishdas.org                       - R' Zelig Pliskin
Fax: (270) 514-1507