First of all, this is a religiously objectionable post. You are turning Hanukkah, which is really a celebration of how Hashem helped the weak holy chareidim defeat the tough modern secularists, into a half-baked hasbarah soundbite. Really?
Secondly, if there is anybody who is dumb enough to deny the fact that the Jews were historically inhabitants of Israel, Hanukkah will not convince them, because they will just say that white European Jews are not descendants of the original Jews. This is a common Palestinian claim. Maybe you should write a post debunking that idiocy.
No. He wrote "not just about". He has not transformed the message of חנוכה, just added another message. Then he wrote, "This is one of the reasons why Chanukah is so crucial." Note the phrase, "one of the reasons". He has not negated the other reasons.
I see you only blocked comments to your anti-charedi posts, but not these innocuous ones - so I will comment on your latest rant here.
You misquote R Kessler as saying that the residents of Kiryat Sefer should therefore not take any time away from their studies to help.. but the letter does not say residents - rather it says "yoshvei ohel hashokdim al talmudam" which means yeshiva and kollel.
You claim Kiryat Sefer nevertheless constantly demands GREATER IDF protection. What in the world are you talking about? Greater that which other city that is similarly located? If it requires greater protection than say Netanya, it is solely because of its location in the West Bank. You make it sound as if Charedim need more protection BECAUSE they are charedim. This is false.
He blocked comments because he is a little scaredy cat who can't stand up to debate. The Irrationalist Modoxer explained it here. https://irrationalistmodoxism.substack.com/p/do-rationalists-need-special-protection And even when he deletes this comment and bans me like the frightened little girl that he is, you will have this in your email inbox.
Sebastian Sufganiyot is my real name, didn't you know? 😂
Yes, many people are afraid to use their real name. But you are afraid of allowing criticism of your opinions, since you cannot defend them. Hence, the need to ban all your opponents, and when that didn't work, silence all discussion completely. How very rationalist of you. Maybe we should award you a special metal that's shaped like a pacifier to celebrate your bravery.
The Gilbert map of "Palestine" is inaccurate... Palestine was a Roman province and did not exist until the Romans devastated the Land of Israel - Judea -Samarea, etc. and renamed it. Any reference to pre Roman times should not use the name Palestine.
I referenced sources written close to time of the events, 1 Maccabees and 2 Maccabees, both of which don't mention the oil miracle and give other reasons for why the holiday is 8 days. I referenced Jospehus, whom you pushed back on. I referenced Al HaNisim, literally called "About the Miracles" which only talks about the military miracles and not the oil.
Your written source for the miracle is several hundred years after it happened. Oral tradition typically applies to Halacha, not historical and miraculous events.
I also mentioned real reasons why Chazal had issues with the Hasmonean dynasty.
We have oral traditions about many non-halacha things as well, it is called aggada (and about the absence of written evidence, we already discussed). But in this case, the Gemara understands this as a halachic tradition as well, that is why we say the bracha of שעשה ניסים every night, because of the miracle of the oil.
You made up that the oral tradition is only for Halacha, no source whatsoever. The Gemara quotes a tradition, a Beraysa, which says the story of the lights. Yet you trust the hashmata of Maccabees more. And your reason is because it was only politics that kept Maccabees out of the canon. And your proof to the effects of politics on Chazal is the Israeli Knesset.
You are right, it is not intellectual dishonesty. There is nothing intellectual about it. Mushroom-induced stream of consciousness.
My mistake, I saw the N and assumed Natan was continuing the conversation. I'm actually quite glad to realize that Natan Slifkin did not use the term "Mohammedans" and double down on racism and Islamophobia that way.
My "types" is a weird way of saying something about me, who I presume you don't know. And if you "in all honesty" wanted to hear about what I'm doing on social media, you wouldn't have phrased it as "I imagine none of your 'productive' conversations..." which is objectively not a genuine framing of a question that wants an answer.
As to the "o" vs "u," now that I see the commenter was some random guy and not Natan himself, let me be clear: It does fucking matter. Study some history. Ask any medievalist or early modern historian, of the Middle East or Europe. It fucking matters.
#1: Your use of the spelling "Moslem" betrays certain insidious biases.
#2: You speak about "them" as if all Palestinians say and think the same thing. This is very untrue. I have been active on social media to debunk myths that warp Jewish and Arab history, but I am also engaged in some very productive conversations with Jews and Muslims, Israelis and Palestinians and Arabs, that get into the nitty-gritty of history, politics, etc.
Seriously? You're going to rest your argument on an "o" vs. a "u"? Let's just called them "Mohammedans" and see how you react.
I'd like to know which "myths" you're busy debunking.
And I imagine none of your "productive" conversations are with any of the huge majority of Palestinians who think the October 7 massacre makes them proud.
Look, I had so much respect for you until now. You've lost my respect not for the views you've posted but this ridiculously aggressive/defensive mocking response. You, who struggled so much to fight for acceptance of rational thought, are being completely irrational. It's a sad thing to witness.
Please don't try that "I had so much respect for you until now". You've never even encountered me before now. Seriously, you types try that line so often it's gotten silly.
Unless you think I am Natan Slifkin? I'm not.
And yes, I am going to mock people who try to "contextualize" attacks against my people. But in all honestly, I was genuinely curious about your accomplishments on social media.
"This is one of the reasons why Chanukah is so crucial."
Although of course the 'ba'alei machshovoh' would argue. They don't mention that cruciality at all. It's all about a battle of philosophies, importance of torah shbal peh. All the remozim brought by midrash to chanukoh - they are all about the neis shemen or philosophy.
The earliest use I have found of the term "Palestinian" in its current context is from about 1911, by some Christian Arab nationalists chafing under rule of the Ottoman Empire (then under the Committee of Union and Progress, whose members would later commit genocide against Armenians) and the authority of the Greek Orthodox Patriarch of Constantinople.
That would make sense. During the Ottoman era, it would make sense that challengers to the sovereign would invoke a geographic term that would imply its distinction from the empire. Under the British Mandate, challengers to the Mandate (i.e. Philip Hitti, see e.g. Crum in Behind the Silken Curtain) denied the legitimacy of the sane distinct geographic region, implicitly Jewish, that was separate from the (Syrian) Arab whole.
Did this come at the expense of the Palestinians, many of whom had been living here for centuries and wanted their own sovereignty? Arguably, yes. But their identity back then was “Arab,” not Palestinian, and they had other areas of Arab land to live in with Moslem sovereignty, both inside and outside of Israel, whereas the Jews had no such recourse. In fact, they should still be allowed to move to those Moslem Arab states today. And those that chose to accept the UN vote and reconcile with Israel ended up with far superior lives; those that reject Israel paid, and continue to pay, the consequences of their past and present poor choices.)
Like of gymnastics here. Did it come at the expense of the people living here? Arguable yes said the rabbi - because something about nomenclature. But the good ones left the area-where did they go? And the bad ones , what was their crime exactly ? Paid the consequences of their bad choices . Which bad choices ? So much energy devoted to asking the wrong questions. The question is, why is it ours? Answer- because we’ve got it and we aren’t going to let anyone take it away.
Which, interestingly, is pretty much exactly what the Shimon the Hasmonean replied when the land he'd won was demanded back. (He added, "It was ours first.")
As did Yiftach, a millennium earlier. ("God gave it to us.")
Chazal had major issue with the Hasmonean dynasty, especially since they ultimitely became Hellenists. However, the Judeans were already celebrating the victory for generations so Chazal added additional religious aspects to the celebration. Eg. the first mention of the Menorah miracle is in the Gemara, Talmud Bavli specifically, which was completed about 850 years after the Maccabean revolt , not the Mishna, Al HaNisim, Talmud Yerushami, or 1 Maccabees and 2 Maccabees both of which were written around the time that the events occurred. So while Chazal had no choice but to the support the holiday, they actively decided to exclude the Maccabee books from Tanakh because of their issues with the Hasmoneans.
The menorah miracle is mentioned in a braita from the 2nd century, and also in Megillat Antiochus which likely dates to the second century. These are among the earliest recorded sources of oral Torah.
Chazal certainly had major issues with the Hasmonean dynasty, but they still thought the success of the revolt and rededication of the Temple was a great thing.
Thank you for the correction. These are still several hundred years after the events. And they are absent from contemporaneous historical accounts that were written by Judeans/Jews.
I agree that Chazal had positive thoughts about the revolt and rededication of the temple. Their issue was with the Hasmonean dynasty. So they stressed some aspects while downplaying the Hasmoneans to some degree.
Megillat Antiochus is much later than that. The line about the miracle in the Bavli is not from a beraita but from the scholium of Megillat Taanit- the line from the original Megillat Taanit, which doesn't mention the miracle, is in Aramaic, the Hebrew portion with the miracle is much later. (That the Gemara says ת"ר is interesting.)
To put it into years, imagine if in about 1875 someone published a story about something that happened at the Magna Carta signing in 1215, quoting a source from about 1575 that we didn't have any original of. (We can leave aside that for purposes of this story, we'd be living in 3375 and the earliest manuscript of the 1875 work would date to about 2575.) Would you believe it? Would you believe it if there were two separate sources from 1265, one of which didn't agree with the 1875/1575 story and one of which directly contradicted it? And another from 1415? And another from 1450? And another from 1575?
All Torah was an oral tradition at the time, and oral tradition is not the same as cultural traditions of various illiterate tribes. It was of supreme importance that people remember Torah precisely, and much effort was expended by every scholar in that respect. Mistakes crept in, but not as many as would be if people didn't care about the truth.
Those traditions aren't family stories, they are our Torah.
That's the point - the gemara calls it a braita. As such, it's recorded in oral Torah sourced as far back as they go. It's also recorded in later sources (and my impression is scholars would disagree with you about Megillat Antiochus being "much later") but that does not erase it being recorded in earlier sources too.
This is only true if you don't believe in an oral tradition. If you believe in an oral tradition, then of course you would trust the source from 1575. So it is not relevant to Torah Jews who believe in the Torah sh'bal Peh. We trust the Torah sh'bal Peh over some anonymous guy's diary.
Well, let's be fair. Here's a brief overview of what we know about canonization:
There was a general feeling, not without merit, that the coming of Alexander really changed things. So if it wasn't written by about 350 BCE, it didn't get into Tanach.
Now, that's true of Neviim, which was closed about 300 BCE. But some of Ketuvim dates to after that point- some of Tehillim, maybe, and probably Kohelet and much of Daniel, and maybe some other parts. But the thing is, all of those books are either explicitly attributed to people who lived before 350- 450, even, but to Chazal that's the same thing due to the infamous "missing years"- BCE. Kohelet to Shlomo, Daniel to, well, Daniel, and so on. So they made it in.
The problem is, some books are *explicitly* dated to later than that. Ben Sira lived in 200 BCE, we know that. Chazal liked the book, cited it- they rarely if ever cite *anything* not in Tanach- but he's just too late. And Maccabees is by *definition* too late- in fact, Ketuvim was probably closed, more or less, in 150 BCE, and both 1 and 2 Maccabees are later than that. So they're out.
By the way, even being attributed to an earlier figure doesn't help. The Wisdom of Solomon is not in Tanach, and the Pseudepigrapha is by definition attributed to earlier figures and still doesn't even make it into Christian Bibles.
There's also the point- I've seen it made by both Joseph Klausner and Herman Wouk- that the Apocrypha is, well, just not that good. Ben Sira, the best of them, doesn't live up to any of the twenty-four books of Tanach. Another point is that Daniel is the only book even partially post-dating 250 BCE or so. It got in because it was special, or maybe the first half was already in.
So it's possible the exclusion of Maccabees had nothing to do with ideology. (Note also that both books end well before things went bad.) I mean, there's always the possibility, but there are more likely, simpler, reasons.
דברי הימים למלכי יהודה ודברי הימים למלכי ישראל are not included either. It doesn't seem any ספרי מלחמות were included, so I don't see why ספר מכבים is different. The Gemara gives a special reason for Yehoshua.
Well, of course not every book from before this period was included. In his book R' Leiman lists dozens of books mentioned in Tanach that are not included in it, and many of them do not involve wars.
(Why only Yehoshua? At least four books of the Torah mention wars, as do many other books of Nach.)
But *every* book after a certain date did not make it in.
Tanakh was written with Ruach Hakodesh. Are you suggesting Maccabees was also?
If not, why should it have been in Tanakh?
And the religious aspect of the holiday is much earlier, they celebrated during the times of the Beis Hamikdash, with lighting candles each night. It was always religious, Slonimsky was thoroughly debunked.
I'm not saying it wasn't religious. I'm saying that aspects of observance changed overtime and the miracle of the oil was not mentioned in secular or religious texts of that time period and seemingly unknown about until centuries later.
There was a fire aspect of the holiday from the early days. Josephus calls it the festival of lights but doesn't seem to know why that is, which is odd for someone who grew up as a Torah observant Jew. The reason he gives is - "the freedom to worship had been concealed in darkness and is now brought to light." And it was a major religious an political holiday.
Keep in mind that 2,000 years ago, politics, religion, and culture were one and the same. It is a modern concept to separate those three.
I'm not sure how to tell whether a Sefer was written with Ruach Hakodesh. What I do know, is that process of cannonizing Tanakh took centuries and there are several books in the apocrypha that were considered to be included in Tanakh. Religious considerations and politics played a role.
The theory of books being canonized only being from those written with ruach hakodesh is debated on by the Rambam and Abarbanel. However, it is clear from the Gemara that אנשי כנסת הגדולה sealed the canon, and chanuka was many years later. Additionally, the book of Maccabees is a random diary, and I don't see any reason to include it. I believe the Maratz Chayes gives that reason as well. Shneur Leiman has an interesting lecture on this.
You don't know what was known and unknown in those days. You know what we know nowadays.
The idea that the miracle of the lights was invented later is an old one, and it is based on foolishness. Shas records oral traditions, which by definition were not written down. All you know is that one person - Josephus - did not wish to write it down. For some reason, his word is gospel truth, and Chazal's word is up for any armchair expert 2000 years later.
You don't have to tell if a Sefer was written with Ruach Hakodesh. But you seem to know exactly why Maccabees wasn't included in Tanakh. Chazal who canonized these books did know what was written beruach Hakodesh and what wasn't. Your claim of politics is just your imagination. For all we know, you have some political affiliation that doesn't allow you to appreciate the Chanuka story as it really happened.
I know that the tefillah, Al Hanisim, makes no mention of it. Why not? It only speaks about the military miracles.
I know that contemporaneous history books, written at the time, by Jews did not mention the oil miracle. 1 Maccabeas doesn't mention it and neither does 2 Maccabeas, which specifically focuses on the religious and miraculous aspects of the rebellion and attributes the military victory to Hashem, yet it does not make any mention of the oil miracle when the Beit HaMikdash was dedicated. Both of these were written around the time the events occured (even better source than Josephus)
Those ommissions and especially the ommission from Al Hanism seem odd. Why is it missing from Al HaNisim? (keep in mind that Al Hanisim predates the Talmud)
I don't know excatly why the Maccabees wasn't included in Tanakh. I never said I did. No one knows for certain. But we do have some idea of how Tanakh was canonized and we also know from historical and Rabbinic sources that Chazal had issues with the ultimate Hasmonean dynasty because of what they became. Whether these books deserve to be in Tanakh or not is irrelevant. They both serve as historical documentation of the events of Hanukkah that even we, Orthodox Jews, rely on and neither mention the oil miracle.
No need for personal insults. My goal is to understand the Hanukkah story as it truly happened, not as it has been interpretted and reinterpreted over the centuries. It is a facinating story and extremely miraculous.
Chazal are mere mortals who are also motivated by politics. All you have to do is look at Israel and the Knesset. Not my imagination.
Regarding Josephus, he was born a Sadducee and seems to be ignorant/confused about many other Torah concepts. It is possible the Sadducees of those days denied or de-emphasized the miracle the same way many people do today.
Entirely possible. But one would think as a Sadducee, and someone from a priestly family, he would be even more familiar with a miracle that occured in the Beit HaMikdash. This would be a personal history for him, to some degree. Obviously we have no idea why he omitted it.
But there are other early sources that also omit, most notably the Rabbinic source of Al Hanisim and the Mishna for that matter.
They were celebrating the rest of megilas taanis for centuries too. The major victoreis actually happened 30 years later, and the other yamim tovim were still abolished. Why did Chazal "have no choice" but to keep this one? People didn't want to part with their doughnuts?
I think he means the Hasmonien government which brought many problems down the line. Which honestly makes it hard for me to understand the Rambam who sounds like the sovereignty is also to be celebrated. But then I am not sure how that fits with his first comment.
Sorry I wasn't clear. The Rambam says that they held on to the מלוכה for over 200 years. I am not sure why all those years are to be celebrated since they went sour a few decades in, and 100 of those years were Herodian. The Gemara in Sanhedrin gives a much smaller number of which reigns are to be celebrated.
The standard story is that the Hellenic monarchy was directly anti Jewish, and the biblical account suggest that deliberate anti Jewish deeds (pork consumption) were imposed. Is this account implausible for any reason?
Herod the Great murdered pretty much all the Hasmoean line, including his own wife and children. Caesar Augustus reportedly remarked “It is better to be Herod’s pig than son”. (Herod kept kosher so there was no reason for him to kill pigs.) However, the source for that quote is hundreds of years later.
In the Christian version, seven sons are killed for refusing pork; it is the most salient fact; I am not sure how canonical is from a Jewish perspective. I asked precisely for that: https://bible.usccb.org/bible/2maccabees/7
That was one of the arguments that some Christians used in order to argue that it should NOT be part of their canon. Early Christianity was pretty hostile to Christians keeping any part of Jewish ritual law, and the most important early figure of the Eastern Church was particularly strident:
I'm cross-posting this very relevant post from IM last year:
https://irrationalistmodoxism.substack.com/p/difficult-questions-about-hannukah
You're conflating relevance with a non sequitor.
Relevant to Hannukah.
Two problems:
First of all, this is a religiously objectionable post. You are turning Hanukkah, which is really a celebration of how Hashem helped the weak holy chareidim defeat the tough modern secularists, into a half-baked hasbarah soundbite. Really?
Secondly, if there is anybody who is dumb enough to deny the fact that the Jews were historically inhabitants of Israel, Hanukkah will not convince them, because they will just say that white European Jews are not descendants of the original Jews. This is a common Palestinian claim. Maybe you should write a post debunking that idiocy.
"You are turning Hanukkah... into"
No. He wrote "not just about". He has not transformed the message of חנוכה, just added another message. Then he wrote, "This is one of the reasons why Chanukah is so crucial." Note the phrase, "one of the reasons". He has not negated the other reasons.
I see you only blocked comments to your anti-charedi posts, but not these innocuous ones - so I will comment on your latest rant here.
You misquote R Kessler as saying that the residents of Kiryat Sefer should therefore not take any time away from their studies to help.. but the letter does not say residents - rather it says "yoshvei ohel hashokdim al talmudam" which means yeshiva and kollel.
You claim Kiryat Sefer nevertheless constantly demands GREATER IDF protection. What in the world are you talking about? Greater that which other city that is similarly located? If it requires greater protection than say Netanya, it is solely because of its location in the West Bank. You make it sound as if Charedim need more protection BECAUSE they are charedim. This is false.
He blocked comments because he is a little scaredy cat who can't stand up to debate. The Irrationalist Modoxer explained it here. https://irrationalistmodoxism.substack.com/p/do-rationalists-need-special-protection And even when he deletes this comment and bans me like the frightened little girl that he is, you will have this in your email inbox.
...says the guy who's afraid to even use his name!
Sebastian Sufganiyot is my real name, didn't you know? 😂
Yes, many people are afraid to use their real name. But you are afraid of allowing criticism of your opinions, since you cannot defend them. Hence, the need to ban all your opponents, and when that didn't work, silence all discussion completely. How very rationalist of you. Maybe we should award you a special metal that's shaped like a pacifier to celebrate your bravery.
I concur with this. We need a new name for this blog. Maybe "Lily-livered Judaism".
Great presentation! I always liked the old vort that הלל והודאה is on the victory, as in al hanisim, while lighting candles is on the oil miracle.
Not a fan of that wiki map though, if anyone thinks that way after reading Josephus I'd highly question that.
It's about ARAB rejection of Jewish sovereignty, anywhere.
"How could the damn Jews want their own state rather than live as dhimmis in our countries?"
The Gilbert map of "Palestine" is inaccurate... Palestine was a Roman province and did not exist until the Romans devastated the Land of Israel - Judea -Samarea, etc. and renamed it. Any reference to pre Roman times should not use the name Palestine.
I referenced sources written close to time of the events, 1 Maccabees and 2 Maccabees, both of which don't mention the oil miracle and give other reasons for why the holiday is 8 days. I referenced Jospehus, whom you pushed back on. I referenced Al HaNisim, literally called "About the Miracles" which only talks about the military miracles and not the oil.
Your written source for the miracle is several hundred years after it happened. Oral tradition typically applies to Halacha, not historical and miraculous events.
I also mentioned real reasons why Chazal had issues with the Hasmonean dynasty.
Yet I'm intellectually dishonest?
Happy Hannukah and have a good night.
We have oral traditions about many non-halacha things as well, it is called aggada (and about the absence of written evidence, we already discussed). But in this case, the Gemara understands this as a halachic tradition as well, that is why we say the bracha of שעשה ניסים every night, because of the miracle of the oil.
"Oral tradition typically applies to Halacha." Like lighting a menora on chanuka even though it's not mentioned in the book of the Maccabees.
You made up that the oral tradition is only for Halacha, no source whatsoever. The Gemara quotes a tradition, a Beraysa, which says the story of the lights. Yet you trust the hashmata of Maccabees more. And your reason is because it was only politics that kept Maccabees out of the canon. And your proof to the effects of politics on Chazal is the Israeli Knesset.
You are right, it is not intellectual dishonesty. There is nothing intellectual about it. Mushroom-induced stream of consciousness.
Not a Berayta, see above.
another clever personal insult. keep them coming.
Shabbat Shalom!
You are the one insulting yourself. You brought 'proof' from the Knesset, nobody else.
Helpful idea No. 4624 - If you don't want people laughing at you, don't walk around with your pants on your head.
Keep them coming.
My mistake, I saw the N and assumed Natan was continuing the conversation. I'm actually quite glad to realize that Natan Slifkin did not use the term "Mohammedans" and double down on racism and Islamophobia that way.
My "types" is a weird way of saying something about me, who I presume you don't know. And if you "in all honesty" wanted to hear about what I'm doing on social media, you wouldn't have phrased it as "I imagine none of your 'productive' conversations..." which is objectively not a genuine framing of a question that wants an answer.
As to the "o" vs "u," now that I see the commenter was some random guy and not Natan himself, let me be clear: It does fucking matter. Study some history. Ask any medievalist or early modern historian, of the Middle East or Europe. It fucking matters.
"Rather, the point is that we also have an ancient connection to the land"
I hope you mean "also" in the sense of "in addition to other reasons" and not "in addition to the Palestinians."
Conceding that they have any right to the land (in a sovereign sense) means losing the argument already.
#1: Your use of the spelling "Moslem" betrays certain insidious biases.
#2: You speak about "them" as if all Palestinians say and think the same thing. This is very untrue. I have been active on social media to debunk myths that warp Jewish and Arab history, but I am also engaged in some very productive conversations with Jews and Muslims, Israelis and Palestinians and Arabs, that get into the nitty-gritty of history, politics, etc.
Honestly, this post is beneath you.
I deliberately used tha spelling because I was referring to an era when that was the spelling that was used.
That's not how historical scholarship works. And again, you should know that. Your intellectual bona fides are better than this post.
Seriously? You're going to rest your argument on an "o" vs. a "u"? Let's just called them "Mohammedans" and see how you react.
I'd like to know which "myths" you're busy debunking.
And I imagine none of your "productive" conversations are with any of the huge majority of Palestinians who think the October 7 massacre makes them proud.
Look, I had so much respect for you until now. You've lost my respect not for the views you've posted but this ridiculously aggressive/defensive mocking response. You, who struggled so much to fight for acceptance of rational thought, are being completely irrational. It's a sad thing to witness.
Please don't try that "I had so much respect for you until now". You've never even encountered me before now. Seriously, you types try that line so often it's gotten silly.
Unless you think I am Natan Slifkin? I'm not.
And yes, I am going to mock people who try to "contextualize" attacks against my people. But in all honestly, I was genuinely curious about your accomplishments on social media.
"This is one of the reasons why Chanukah is so crucial."
Although of course the 'ba'alei machshovoh' would argue. They don't mention that cruciality at all. It's all about a battle of philosophies, importance of torah shbal peh. All the remozim brought by midrash to chanukoh - they are all about the neis shemen or philosophy.
They started an anti religious culture
The earliest use I have found of the term "Palestinian" in its current context is from about 1911, by some Christian Arab nationalists chafing under rule of the Ottoman Empire (then under the Committee of Union and Progress, whose members would later commit genocide against Armenians) and the authority of the Greek Orthodox Patriarch of Constantinople.
That would make sense. During the Ottoman era, it would make sense that challengers to the sovereign would invoke a geographic term that would imply its distinction from the empire. Under the British Mandate, challengers to the Mandate (i.e. Philip Hitti, see e.g. Crum in Behind the Silken Curtain) denied the legitimacy of the sane distinct geographic region, implicitly Jewish, that was separate from the (Syrian) Arab whole.
Did this come at the expense of the Palestinians, many of whom had been living here for centuries and wanted their own sovereignty? Arguably, yes. But their identity back then was “Arab,” not Palestinian, and they had other areas of Arab land to live in with Moslem sovereignty, both inside and outside of Israel, whereas the Jews had no such recourse. In fact, they should still be allowed to move to those Moslem Arab states today. And those that chose to accept the UN vote and reconcile with Israel ended up with far superior lives; those that reject Israel paid, and continue to pay, the consequences of their past and present poor choices.)
Like of gymnastics here. Did it come at the expense of the people living here? Arguable yes said the rabbi - because something about nomenclature. But the good ones left the area-where did they go? And the bad ones , what was their crime exactly ? Paid the consequences of their bad choices . Which bad choices ? So much energy devoted to asking the wrong questions. The question is, why is it ours? Answer- because we’ve got it and we aren’t going to let anyone take it away.
Which, interestingly, is pretty much exactly what the Shimon the Hasmonean replied when the land he'd won was demanded back. (He added, "It was ours first.")
As did Yiftach, a millennium earlier. ("God gave it to us.")
And there's nothing wrong with that.
Next time i speak to God I'll ask him
The holiday was for the victory which saved the Jews
We are only here because of the promise to Abraham
The victory of the Maccabees was really a religious disaster for Judaism
If it was a religious disaster, then why did God do miracles and why did Chazal celebrate them with a holiday?
Chazal had major issue with the Hasmonean dynasty, especially since they ultimitely became Hellenists. However, the Judeans were already celebrating the victory for generations so Chazal added additional religious aspects to the celebration. Eg. the first mention of the Menorah miracle is in the Gemara, Talmud Bavli specifically, which was completed about 850 years after the Maccabean revolt , not the Mishna, Al HaNisim, Talmud Yerushami, or 1 Maccabees and 2 Maccabees both of which were written around the time that the events occurred. So while Chazal had no choice but to the support the holiday, they actively decided to exclude the Maccabee books from Tanakh because of their issues with the Hasmoneans.
The menorah miracle is mentioned in a braita from the 2nd century, and also in Megillat Antiochus which likely dates to the second century. These are among the earliest recorded sources of oral Torah.
Chazal certainly had major issues with the Hasmonean dynasty, but they still thought the success of the revolt and rededication of the Temple was a great thing.
Thank you for the correction. These are still several hundred years after the events. And they are absent from contemporaneous historical accounts that were written by Judeans/Jews.
I agree that Chazal had positive thoughts about the revolt and rededication of the temple. Their issue was with the Hasmonean dynasty. So they stressed some aspects while downplaying the Hasmoneans to some degree.
Megillat Antiochus is much later than that. The line about the miracle in the Bavli is not from a beraita but from the scholium of Megillat Taanit- the line from the original Megillat Taanit, which doesn't mention the miracle, is in Aramaic, the Hebrew portion with the miracle is much later. (That the Gemara says ת"ר is interesting.)
To put it into years, imagine if in about 1875 someone published a story about something that happened at the Magna Carta signing in 1215, quoting a source from about 1575 that we didn't have any original of. (We can leave aside that for purposes of this story, we'd be living in 3375 and the earliest manuscript of the 1875 work would date to about 2575.) Would you believe it? Would you believe it if there were two separate sources from 1265, one of which didn't agree with the 1875/1575 story and one of which directly contradicted it? And another from 1415? And another from 1450? And another from 1575?
Your analogy is false.
All Torah was an oral tradition at the time, and oral tradition is not the same as cultural traditions of various illiterate tribes. It was of supreme importance that people remember Torah precisely, and much effort was expended by every scholar in that respect. Mistakes crept in, but not as many as would be if people didn't care about the truth.
Those traditions aren't family stories, they are our Torah.
The Torah wasn't an oral tradition in the time of the Maccabim.
"That the Gemara says ת"ר is interesting."
That's the point - the gemara calls it a braita. As such, it's recorded in oral Torah sourced as far back as they go. It's also recorded in later sources (and my impression is scholars would disagree with you about Megillat Antiochus being "much later") but that does not erase it being recorded in earlier sources too.
The Gemara also uses the same language in citing Ben Sira as it does Tanach. That doesn't place Ben Sira in Tanach.
This is only true if you don't believe in an oral tradition. If you believe in an oral tradition, then of course you would trust the source from 1575. So it is not relevant to Torah Jews who believe in the Torah sh'bal Peh. We trust the Torah sh'bal Peh over some anonymous guy's diary.
Do you trust the Torah shebeal peh when it says that there were only four Persian kings and the Persian Empire lasted only about fifty years?
Do you trust the Torah shebeal peh when it says the sun goes around the Earth?
Well, let's be fair. Here's a brief overview of what we know about canonization:
There was a general feeling, not without merit, that the coming of Alexander really changed things. So if it wasn't written by about 350 BCE, it didn't get into Tanach.
Now, that's true of Neviim, which was closed about 300 BCE. But some of Ketuvim dates to after that point- some of Tehillim, maybe, and probably Kohelet and much of Daniel, and maybe some other parts. But the thing is, all of those books are either explicitly attributed to people who lived before 350- 450, even, but to Chazal that's the same thing due to the infamous "missing years"- BCE. Kohelet to Shlomo, Daniel to, well, Daniel, and so on. So they made it in.
The problem is, some books are *explicitly* dated to later than that. Ben Sira lived in 200 BCE, we know that. Chazal liked the book, cited it- they rarely if ever cite *anything* not in Tanach- but he's just too late. And Maccabees is by *definition* too late- in fact, Ketuvim was probably closed, more or less, in 150 BCE, and both 1 and 2 Maccabees are later than that. So they're out.
By the way, even being attributed to an earlier figure doesn't help. The Wisdom of Solomon is not in Tanach, and the Pseudepigrapha is by definition attributed to earlier figures and still doesn't even make it into Christian Bibles.
There's also the point- I've seen it made by both Joseph Klausner and Herman Wouk- that the Apocrypha is, well, just not that good. Ben Sira, the best of them, doesn't live up to any of the twenty-four books of Tanach. Another point is that Daniel is the only book even partially post-dating 250 BCE or so. It got in because it was special, or maybe the first half was already in.
So it's possible the exclusion of Maccabees had nothing to do with ideology. (Note also that both books end well before things went bad.) I mean, there's always the possibility, but there are more likely, simpler, reasons.
דברי הימים למלכי יהודה ודברי הימים למלכי ישראל are not included either. It doesn't seem any ספרי מלחמות were included, so I don't see why ספר מכבים is different. The Gemara gives a special reason for Yehoshua.
Well, of course not every book from before this period was included. In his book R' Leiman lists dozens of books mentioned in Tanach that are not included in it, and many of them do not involve wars.
(Why only Yehoshua? At least four books of the Torah mention wars, as do many other books of Nach.)
But *every* book after a certain date did not make it in.
Yes, I posted a link of his lecture on this on the forum. I was just giving one example.
Tanakh was written with Ruach Hakodesh. Are you suggesting Maccabees was also?
If not, why should it have been in Tanakh?
And the religious aspect of the holiday is much earlier, they celebrated during the times of the Beis Hamikdash, with lighting candles each night. It was always religious, Slonimsky was thoroughly debunked.
I'm not saying it wasn't religious. I'm saying that aspects of observance changed overtime and the miracle of the oil was not mentioned in secular or religious texts of that time period and seemingly unknown about until centuries later.
There was a fire aspect of the holiday from the early days. Josephus calls it the festival of lights but doesn't seem to know why that is, which is odd for someone who grew up as a Torah observant Jew. The reason he gives is - "the freedom to worship had been concealed in darkness and is now brought to light." And it was a major religious an political holiday.
Keep in mind that 2,000 years ago, politics, religion, and culture were one and the same. It is a modern concept to separate those three.
I'm not sure how to tell whether a Sefer was written with Ruach Hakodesh. What I do know, is that process of cannonizing Tanakh took centuries and there are several books in the apocrypha that were considered to be included in Tanakh. Religious considerations and politics played a role.
The theory of books being canonized only being from those written with ruach hakodesh is debated on by the Rambam and Abarbanel. However, it is clear from the Gemara that אנשי כנסת הגדולה sealed the canon, and chanuka was many years later. Additionally, the book of Maccabees is a random diary, and I don't see any reason to include it. I believe the Maratz Chayes gives that reason as well. Shneur Leiman has an interesting lecture on this.
Is Leimans lecture available online?
You don't know what was known and unknown in those days. You know what we know nowadays.
The idea that the miracle of the lights was invented later is an old one, and it is based on foolishness. Shas records oral traditions, which by definition were not written down. All you know is that one person - Josephus - did not wish to write it down. For some reason, his word is gospel truth, and Chazal's word is up for any armchair expert 2000 years later.
You don't have to tell if a Sefer was written with Ruach Hakodesh. But you seem to know exactly why Maccabees wasn't included in Tanakh. Chazal who canonized these books did know what was written beruach Hakodesh and what wasn't. Your claim of politics is just your imagination. For all we know, you have some political affiliation that doesn't allow you to appreciate the Chanuka story as it really happened.
Got a contemporary source that wrote about the miracle of the oil? Otherwise, you are on shaky ground in claiming it "really happened".
I know that the tefillah, Al Hanisim, makes no mention of it. Why not? It only speaks about the military miracles.
I know that contemporaneous history books, written at the time, by Jews did not mention the oil miracle. 1 Maccabeas doesn't mention it and neither does 2 Maccabeas, which specifically focuses on the religious and miraculous aspects of the rebellion and attributes the military victory to Hashem, yet it does not make any mention of the oil miracle when the Beit HaMikdash was dedicated. Both of these were written around the time the events occured (even better source than Josephus)
Those ommissions and especially the ommission from Al Hanism seem odd. Why is it missing from Al HaNisim? (keep in mind that Al Hanisim predates the Talmud)
I don't know excatly why the Maccabees wasn't included in Tanakh. I never said I did. No one knows for certain. But we do have some idea of how Tanakh was canonized and we also know from historical and Rabbinic sources that Chazal had issues with the ultimate Hasmonean dynasty because of what they became. Whether these books deserve to be in Tanakh or not is irrelevant. They both serve as historical documentation of the events of Hanukkah that even we, Orthodox Jews, rely on and neither mention the oil miracle.
No need for personal insults. My goal is to understand the Hanukkah story as it truly happened, not as it has been interpretted and reinterpreted over the centuries. It is a facinating story and extremely miraculous.
Chazal are mere mortals who are also motivated by politics. All you have to do is look at Israel and the Knesset. Not my imagination.
Regarding Josephus, he was born a Sadducee and seems to be ignorant/confused about many other Torah concepts. It is possible the Sadducees of those days denied or de-emphasized the miracle the same way many people do today.
Entirely possible. But one would think as a Sadducee, and someone from a priestly family, he would be even more familiar with a miracle that occured in the Beit HaMikdash. This would be a personal history for him, to some degree. Obviously we have no idea why he omitted it.
But there are other early sources that also omit, most notably the Rabbinic source of Al Hanisim and the Mishna for that matter.
Still, halocho is clear you can read Josephus on tishba b'av or as an ovel. If he was 'a dodgy guy', you would expect a ban, no?
The Torah מפי הה למשה ושי and the נביאים by theנביא or with theחכ מים. The כתובים depends, שיר השירים קוהלת is aquedtipm wwboch
שיר השירים and קןהלת was questioned but ultimately included in the canon.
What is רוח הקודש? Is it like נבואה or is it a qualitative inspirational expression of unusual proportions etc. or a bit of both?
Why would Chazal support the holiday just because of the victory? They abolished the rest of מגילת תענית which mostly contain Hasmonian victories.
Because the Jewish prople had already been celebrating it for centuries. To be fair it was a major victory for our people.
Chazal had 2 choices, abolish or embrace and sanctify it. They made the right choice IMHO.
They were celebrating the rest of megilas taanis for centuries too. The major victoreis actually happened 30 years later, and the other yamim tovim were still abolished. Why did Chazal "have no choice" but to keep this one? People didn't want to part with their doughnuts?
The Gemara discussed this issue clearly. And the Gemara clearly says that they lit Chanuka candles during the time of the Beis Hamikdash.
I don't know if this Josh guy is for real or he is trying to make fun of Slifkin. It can go either way.
I think he means the Hasmonien government which brought many problems down the line. Which honestly makes it hard for me to understand the Rambam who sounds like the sovereignty is also to be celebrated. But then I am not sure how that fits with his first comment.
Read Daniel 12:
וְעָמַד עַל כַּנּוֹ מַעֲבִיר נוֹגֵשׂ הֶדֶר מַלְכוּת וּבְיָמִים אֲחָדִים יִשָּׁבֵר וְלֹא בְאַפַּיִם וְלֹא בְמִלְחָמָה
Rashi says that this possuk is referring to the Chashmona'im, and they are called הֶדֶר מַלְכוּת until they were suddenly undermined.
Sorry I wasn't clear. The Rambam says that they held on to the מלוכה for over 200 years. I am not sure why all those years are to be celebrated since they went sour a few decades in, and 100 of those years were Herodian. The Gemara in Sanhedrin gives a much smaller number of which reigns are to be celebrated.
This is interesting. Why? Do you think Hellenized Judaism would have been better? I am sincerely curious...
The Maccabees took over the monarchy and they opposed the rabbis
I don't think there was a concept of Rabbis yet. The religious leaders were the Kohanim/Sadducees.
Read some pirkei Avos.
The standard story is that the Hellenic monarchy was directly anti Jewish, and the biblical account suggest that deliberate anti Jewish deeds (pork consumption) were imposed. Is this account implausible for any reason?
I don't know about pork but naked sports and cancelling circumcisions was rife
Chapter 7 of 2 Maccabees.
Judaism is still better off by being persecuted by their own that Jews in the non-Jewish government pulling the strings.
More Jews were killed by other Jews in destruction of the second temple than by the Romans
Those were baryonim, sicari and other groups. They were not Hasmoniens.
Just goes to show you
Herod the Great murdered pretty much all the Hasmoean line, including his own wife and children. Caesar Augustus reportedly remarked “It is better to be Herod’s pig than son”. (Herod kept kosher so there was no reason for him to kill pigs.) However, the source for that quote is hundreds of years later.
In the Christian version, seven sons are killed for refusing pork; it is the most salient fact; I am not sure how canonical is from a Jewish perspective. I asked precisely for that: https://bible.usccb.org/bible/2maccabees/7
That was one of the arguments that some Christians used in order to argue that it should NOT be part of their canon. Early Christianity was pretty hostile to Christians keeping any part of Jewish ritual law, and the most important early figure of the Eastern Church was particularly strident:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Adversus_Judaeos
(I am giving him the benefit of the doubt that he was really criticizing Judaizing Christians and not actual Jews.)
Fun fact: Fourth Maccabees (which expands on the story of Channah and her sons) got to be so popular our word "Macabre" very possibly derives from it.