[Avodah] lighting a chanukiya

[Akiva Blum]

RETurkel wrote:
>That does not necessarily mean a chanukiya. There are
>opinions that lighting a chanukiya began only at the end of the
>second Temple days. Until then they relied on the Menorah in
>the Temple. That explains why Bet Shammai and Bet Hillel can
>argue about the order of lighting. It still was not settled almost
>22 years after Chanukah.
>Josephus does not seem to be aware of lighting chanukiyot.
>Since it was meant to be done outside to publicize the miracle it
>seems strange than a historian of the times looking into reasons
>was not aware of the custom. However if the custom
>just began at the time of the destruction it would explain why
>it still was not widespread and why the details were being argued.

The gemorah, Rosh Hashono 18b, is discussing whether megillas taanis is
botul, and attempts to bring a proof from that one may not fast on chanukah
after churban habayis. The gemorah says:
Rav Yosef said, chanukah is different that there is the mitzva. Abaye said
to him, so it should be botul and it's mitzva should be botul [ i.e. if
megilas taanis is botul and chanukah loses it's special status, the mitzva
which is the cause of that special status should also finish]. Instead said
Rav Yosef, chanukah is different that the neis is publicised. Rashi - it was
already revealed to all yisroel through that which they kept it's mitzvos.

We see from this gemorah that:
1) The mitzvos of chanukah were kept during the second temple period.
2) They were widely kept.

It still needs to be explained how Chazal were mataken a mitzva that no one
had to keep for hundreds of years, and only after the churban. What were
they thinking?