[Avodah] Hanukkah I and Hanukkah II

[Chana Luntz]

RMB writes:

> I also do not feel I got a satisfactory answer to my original
> questions:
> 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. Possible, but unlikely, since it would mean a
> post-churban beis din (post BH and BS and their machloqes about how
> many neiros to light) that was gadol mimenu bechokhmah uveminyan from a
beis
> din from the days of the first zug.

That kasha is not difficult to answer according to RRW's theory.  Because it
is pretty close explicit in Rosh Hashana 18b what the procedure was.  The
discussion in Rosh Hashana there is whether Megillas Ta'anis has been
mevatelled or not.  And one of the proofs brought is from a ma'aseh in Lod
where they declared a fast on Channukah - which means that at least the
rabbonim in Lod thought it was mevatelled, along with the rest of Megillas
Ta'anis.  Now it is also true that R' Eliezer and R' Yehoshua made a point
of travelling to Lod and of getting their hair cut and bathing, and then
telling the people that they needed to fast because they had declared a fast
on Channukah - but what this indicates is that there was a serious machlokus
that actually played itself out in practice at one point.

Now what is also interesting is the follow on discussion - because Rav Yosef
then says that Channukah is different (ie even if you abolish the rest of
Megillas Ta'anis you shouldn't abolish Channukah) because "d'ikar mitzvah"
And Abaye then responds - so, nullify it and its mitzvah (ie if you are
abolishing Megillas Ta'anis, the fact that there is a mitzvah that comes
along with it doesn't matter, the mitzvah should go too).  And Rav Yosef
seems to accept Abaye's reasoning, because he then gives another reason -
shani channukah d'mefursam nisa!.

So - the answers according to your questions would seem to be reasonably
clear.  The same power that it was concluded abolished Megillas Ta'anis is
the power that should have, absence persumei nisa, allowed them to abolish
Channukah, and in fact there were rabbonim in Lod at the time of Rabbi
Eliezer and Rabbi Yehoshua who thought that Channukah was indeed abolished
and acted on it.  And the fact that there is a mitzvah associated
(presumably the mitzvah to light candles) would not in and of itself have
been enough to save it - but you are right, the fundamental source of that
mitzvah would seem to be Megillas Ta'anis, so that if Megillas Ta'anis in
abolished in its entirety, that would include abolishing the mitzvah too,
despite the machlokus between Beis Hillel and Beis Shammai (and presumably
that is what happened in Lod, I assume they can't have been lighting candles
and fasting - certainly that would seem to be common ground between Rav
Yosef and Abaye).  And the conclusion of this little sugya would seem to
suggest that the reason why Channukah was not indeed abolished (as is then
concluded at the real end of the discussion on Rosh Hashana 19b) was because
of pirsumei nisa.  Ie R' Eliezer and R' Yehoshua prevailed, but their reason
(as provided by the gemora) is arguably a "new reason" which would, it seems
to me, allow RRW to call it a kind of Channukah II, because the reasons that
Channukah was initially established would not have been enough.

And it is interesting to note the Rashi there on pesumei nisa - he says
"kvar hu galui l'chol yisroel al yadei shenahagu bo hamitzvos v'heziku bo
kshel torah v'lo nachon l'batlo". 

Isn't that pretty much what RRW is saying?

> Tir'u baTov!
> -Micha

Regards

Chana