[Avodah] Why is Chanuka not mentioned in the Mishna?

[Micha Berger]

On Fri, Dec 11, 2009 at 11:49:25AM +0200, Marty Bluke wrote:
: Except for 1 oiffhand reference at the end of the 6th Perek of Baba Kama
: there is no mention of Chanuka in the Mishna. It seems really strange that
: none of the halachos of Chanuka are mentioned in Mishnayos. Any sources as
: to why it was left out?

This is a frequenly asked question.

The Chazam Sofer (Gittin 20) invoked the Rambam (Menachos 4:1) who says
that the mishnah doesn't discuss mezuzah, tefillin, tzitzis or the
siddur because even laymen know them. Megillah begins with practices
that aren't in common for all -- who reads when. Chanukah candles are
similar.

Personally, I don't find this teirutz convincing. THere is a pereq Bameh
Madliqin, after all -- just as there are details about Shabbos candles
that need discussing, so too Chanukah. And if it were all so pashut,
why would that pereq's gemara bother detouring to disucss it?

Then there's the idea, I forgot who suggested it, that R' Yehudah
haNasi who represented Beis David, had no interest in dwelling on the
Chashmonaim. After all, their usurping the role of melekh, unifying
the kehunah with civil rule, that tempted them into eliminating the
rabbinate. Culminating in Alexander Yannai's massacring all but one of
the Perushim in the Sanhedrin! (Shimon ben Shetach was his brother-in-law,
and was spared.) With the rise of Tzeduqi power, the Perushim appointed
themselves their own leader, the nasi. So wouldn't it be ironic for
the nasi and beis David to laud the deed that lead to Chashmonai power?

I dont' find this one convincing either. Sounds like too weak of a
motive to risk people not knowing the din.

R' Reuvein Margolios (Yesod haMishnah veArichasah p 22) says that R'
Yehudah haNasi didn't touch the rebellion against the Saleucids for
fear of the Romans. Mentioning a celebration of gaining independence
would likely doom the entire mishnah. Toafos (Shabbos 45a "meqamei")
say that the Romans enacted laws against lighting Chanukah candles. RRM
says this fear is also why techiyas hameisim is mentioned in the mishnah
(pereq Cheileq) but not mashiach.

Pachad Yitchaq says it's because Chanukah is all about the oral nature
of TSBP. The fact that most of Torah is "written" on the Jewish people
is what kept the tragedy of the Septuagint from totally eradicating the
difference between Yehudi and nachri.

(Side note: you may want to also see also my blog entry at
<http://www.aishdas.org/asp/2008/12/thought-about-maoz-tzur.shtml> about
"ufortzu chomos migdalai" and Middos 2:2 (or 3) where we're told that
what the Yevanim broke open was the soreg, a 10 tefach high mechitzah
of slats! Again, the focus on the Hellenist desire to absorb us into
the empire's undifferentiated melting pot.)

Personally, I like a simpler explanation. The mishnah didn't need to
codify Hilkhos Chanukah because there was an appendix to Megillas Taanis
that already did so. It was the only mitzvah whose laws were *already*
formalized into textual dinim. Not as pretty as the Pachad Yitzchaq's,
balebatish perhaps, but then again, I /am/ a balebos!

:-)BBii!
-Micha

-- 
Micha Berger             A sick person never rejects a healing procedure
micha at aishdas.org        as "unbefitting." Why, then, do we care what
http://www.aishdas.org   other people think when dealing with spiritual
Fax: (270) 514-1507      matters?              - Rav Yisrael Salanter