[Avodah] Hanukkah I and Hanukkah II

[rabbirichwolpoe at gmail.com]

Micha's objections:
> 1- Which BD had the wherewithall to retire a mitzvah derabbanan? After
> all, the dinim of ner chanukah appear in a codicil to Megilas Taanis
> written before the mishnah -- thus the mitzvah dates back to Chanukah I.
> Retiring Chanukah I would mean having a beis din capable of taking a
> mitzvah off the books.

Point by point
> 1- Which BD had the wherewithall to retire a mitzvah derabbanan?

Hanukkah I
A not a mitzva derabbanan as WE know it that was much later. Rather we
have Hanukkah II as OUR derabbanan from Bavli

B it was batteil with megillas taanis

C it was tied to 
    I. The victory
    II. Hanukas mamizbeiach

Hence it became obsolete. It was not repealed any more than nissuch
hamayin or simchas beis hasho'eiva was repealed. It was simply
inoperative.

> After
> all, the dinim of ner chanukah appear in a codicil to Megilas Taanis
> written before the mishnah -- thus the mitzvah dates back to Chanukah I.

Your seem to be referring to the Hebrew Schollion on the Aramaic megillas
taanis. This is much after Mishnah AFAIK
If you have evidence to the contrary please produce it.



> 2- Once Chanukah was retired, why did they feel a need to restore it to
> the level of din? Chanukah couldn't have remained minhag?

I don't know all the WHY's I'm producing WHAT's

It wasn't retired, it collapsed with the loss of independence and loss
of BhM.

It was restored as normative to celebrate the miracle of the oil davka.
It morphed

And I never said its observance ceased - I'm only addressing its absence
from Mishnah as stating it was not normative - just like dreidel or
latkes is now.

[Due to ceasless offline debates I came up with another model for HOW
it got suspended
Alt. To bateil- underground:
Just like Shofar was a threat to Roman hegemenony perhaps so was Hanukkah.
So it was a sha'as sakkanah in a sense it went underground.]

Tangentially:
Why wasn't Purim batteil?
Whereas Purim was no threat, it celebrated survival not revolution.
It was also rooted in galus, hurban BhM could have no impact.

The bottom line for it not being normative is how could Rebbe have
neglected tannaitic sources otherwise?

There is also the Eli Clark model

VIZM Some kittim observed Hanukkah I and others Hanukkah II
co-temperaneously.

And with the Hurban only Hanukkah II survived

That fails to answer:
A The absence of Halachah in the mishnah
B the shift from victory-hanukkas mizbei"ach dynamic to oil dynamic in
the sources themselves

Remember NO early source has the oil miracle - which is strange!
Even missing from beemay matisyahu.

This hypothesis does not presume that the oil miracle never happened
only that it didn't count for much until later on.

Why did Hazal revive it?

I don't know for sure
Here are several
Possibilities:

A It was being observed anyway. Bavli commissioned several minaggim
into Halachah

B. The people needed to recall the yeshuah when things looked bleak

C. While in EY the lack of BhM was embedded in society, in Bavel it
really impacted them very little one way or the other.

D. Hazal moved various observances from the material to the spiritual

E. It was revived zecher l'miqdash - like s'firas ho'omer.

Bottom line:
How to explain
A absence from Mishnah
B morphing the underlying reason

Let's assume alternatively that it was indeed continuously normative -
Then hadra kushta leduchta why no Mishnah?!

If the existing teirutzim on no Mishnah saisfy you, then you may dismiss
this hypothesis as not adding much value

OTOH if you find those teirutzim as"dochaq" then this provides another
approach

Gut'n
Hanukkah

Sent via BlackBerry from T-Mobile