[Avodah] Hanukkah I and Hanukkah II

[Micha Berger]

On Mon, Dec 14, 2009 at 05:13:46PM +0000, rabbirichwolpoe at gmail.com wrote:
: 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

We have a machloqes BH and Beis Shammai about how many neiros to light
which day. Clearly neir Chanukah was part of Chanukah 1. A mitzvah
derabbanan that would have had to be retired.

Regardless of when you date the schollion on Megillas Taanis. As for
saying it's older than the mishnah, that's not my idea, that's the
Seifer haMaskil's answer to why there is no Mesechtes Menorah -- there
was no reason to document the dinim a second time, as they already
appears in Megilas Taanis. The Behag says that zignei Beis Shammai uBH
wrote these laws in megillas taanis. But this is tangential, as we have
other evidence of a mitzvah in Chanukah I that would have had to be
retired.

You also don't address the fact that Rebbe refers to both leining and
sheluchim, and thus your original reason to assume it wasn't lemaaseh
during that period doesn't exist.

The question of 

: 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 It was not repealed any more than nissuch
: hamayin or simchas beis hasho'eiva was repealed.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.

Ein danin es ha'efshar mishe'i efshar. Your comparing dinim that became
physically impossible to do (no techeiles for the kohein's avneit, issues of
tum'ah huterah betzibur, no mizbei'ach, no hole to pour the water into,
etc...) with dinim that became pointless. We have many dinim that became
pointless that are still on the books.

Yes, this explains the need to shift the focus of Chanukah, and why
it became the only time we celebrate a miracle that was only seen by a
small group. We take pride in our relatively unique notion of national
revelation and how we don't celebrate things a cabal could have made up --
except the oil of chanukas hamenorah doesn't fit that pattern. It makes
the most sense that it was presented as a post-facto rationale. It's
hard to believe the neis shemen was an important part of Chanukah when
Al haNissim was written. So, seems to justify assuming "Mai Chanukah?"
was explicitly a recording of the dialog in which the meaning shifted.
"Today, without a BHMQ, without autonomy, what is Chanukah for?"

I have no problem with noting the shift in focus. This thread started
with my attempt to preserve this without making assertions that stretch
the range of the halachic process.

In any case, RH 19b explicitly says that Chanukah and Purim were the two
holidays not anulled when megillas taanis was. So, how can you say
Chanukah was anulled, but reinstated?

...
:> 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

But you can't make theory about the "what"s in which the why's don't
work. Perry Mason wouldn't get too far on arguable evidence and no
motive.

...
: 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.]
...

And /that/ wouldn't have bothered me, since there is no assertion of a
post-Beis Hillel BD that anulled a mitzvah ratified by the zugos.

: 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.

And the book was already canonized, making it kind of awkward. But the
halachic reason: we didn't have a beis din greater than AKhG, so it
wasn't even an option!

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

The Behag says that the dinim in Megillas Taanis were written by zignei
Beis Shammai uBH, which would make it older than the mishnah. Thus the
notion that Mesechtes Chanukah would have been redundant.

OTOH, R' Avraham ben haGra (Rav uPoalim 8a, also in his intro to Medrash
Aggadah Bereishis) has his father naming the lost mesechtos qetanos as:
Tefillin, Chanukah and Mezuzah.

There are numerous other answers, some of which I posted last time: Rebbe
didn't want to have the book banned by the Romans for lauding rebellion,
Rebbe didn't want to reflect too positively on beis Chashmonai (which
I agree is weak, but it also shows how reluctant those who faced the
question before us were to assume a mitzvah could be ended), the CS's
idea that there weren't enough dinim of Chanukah only known to experts
(interestingly to of his other examples are mentioned by the Gra as
being lost mesechtos), etc...

...
: 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

Except that A isn't true. It's the oblique references rather than full
discussion that is odd. But it's not missing. There is no reason to
think it was missing from the generation's notion of din, because dinim
of Chanukah ARE mentioned.

: Remember NO early source has the oil miracle - which is strange!

And that shift was never under dispute.

Tir'u baTov!
-Micha

-- 
Micha Berger             A cheerful disposition is an inestimable treasure.
micha at aishdas.org        It preserves health, promotes convalescence,
http://www.aishdas.org   and helps us cope with adversity.
Fax: (270) 514-1507         - R' SR Hirsch, "From the Wisdom of Mishlei"