[Avodah] Hanukkah I and Hanukkah II

[rabbirichwolpoe at gmail.com]

Let me concede the only question that bothers me is shluchin for kislev
in the Mishnah

All the rest are really about either mis-perceving my point or applying
structures that are irrelevant to my point.

Micha:
> We have a machloqes BH and Beis Shammai about how many neiros to light
> which day. Clearly neir Chanukah was part of Chanukah 1

No disputing that lighting was done early and often
And probably was done all along
[Misperception of my point]

> 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?

Slight Misperception it was not so much halachically annulled it was
metzius annulled.

As for Bavli it Probably
Saw it as
A Now not bateil
Or
B Later reinstated
Or
C Bavli was unaware of my hypothesis which as in any case EY-oriented
and only addressing 70 or 135 until 225.

Nowadyas it's indeed not bateil. Maybe the bittul was considered a
rejected hava amina when it became re-instated.

> 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

Don't know why you like that Maskil better than this Maskil!  ;-)

There was a mitzvah of lighting in Hanukkah I. It was simply not part
of any formal 7 derabbanan's until much later.

The mere presence in the Megillas Taanis simply makes no sense to me to
omit it in Mishnah

There are probably thousands of halachos in [the earlier proto-] mechilta
sifra and sifrei that bore repetition in Mishnah.

Rebbe had Tannaitic material he omitted. What caused that ommission?

Simple 
A no more independence
B no more mizbe'ach

On halachic changes...
Micha:
> But the
> halachic reason: we didn't have a beis din greater than AKhG, so it
> wasn't even an option!

Bateil is bateil see below. It's not a repeal. It's a form of obsolescence.



Did people light anyway?

Yes, but people also eat latkes or play dreidel now and there may even
be a mention in halachic literature, but it's not normative!

I guess It could become normative as a minhag shenispasheit

See SA regarding NOT making Kiddush in shul any longer for bittul of a
Talmudic practice. This aiui opposes Ran who says say it anyway even
though orchim are no longer in shul.

Also see literature on Raabiyah's bittul of hasibba and Tosafos's point
that our hasibba is nowadays different.

See also changes in nusach of orignal 4 questions from mishna's zli,
shaluq umvushal.

Also See halachic literature of how SA made brachah on Ner Hanukkah in
shul - what changed from ner ish uveisso?

Also see Artscroll Mourning in Halachah of how Baruch Dayan Ho'emes is
recited now @ levaya and no longer a p'tira or sh'miyya.

Also see how meturgeman is no longer applicable to laining anymore
despite Talmud considering it normative.

As far as motives go, this is not a contest.
We know that Baruch Dayan Ho'emes has moved. We can only GUESS @ the
motive for moving it. I can speculate many reasons

Here is a simple model

Hanukkah I
Normative

Interim
Popular custom

Hanukkah II
Minhag shenispaheit and restored as normative for entirely different
reasons.


Editorial:

I actually originally posted and posited this about ten years ago 1999.
One C rabbi recently objected to my hypothesis because he said the oil
story is but a "bubbe maaseh." I said: "maybe so but prove it!". IOW
that kind of cynicism is possibly true but unfounded. But we do have
kushyos why the mention is late.

He also said "how can you celebrate independence when that came 20+
years later?"

I repllied: "July 4 and 5 Iyyar came long before the wars of independence
were completed..."

He then asked "letaamaeich it should be day that matisyahu rose up
to rebel!"

I answered "ein hachi nami, the analogy is flawed, nebertheless the tzad
hashaveh is the war neeed not be over to have a date to celebrate."


OTOH now that I have made some sense out of conflating Bavli, History
and W-T, I'm getting attacks from the Right that my stance is Halachically
radical C"V.

Dislaimer 
Maybe that indeed is the perception, but I find it quite anti-radical
myself. So if you perceive this as halachically radical, note it is not
at all intended that way whatsoever. Then ask yourelf, what pre-conceived
notion makes you feel this way?

As a friend noted to me, if you are geting disputed from both Right
and Left, it probably means you're on the right track! [Or is that Left
Track? ;-)]

Gutn Hanukkah
RRW
Sent via BlackBerry from T-Mobile