A review of Marc Michael Epstein’s The Medieval Haggadah, Narrative & Religious Imagination

Marc Michael Epstein, The Medieval Haggadah, Art, Narrative & Religious Imagination, Yale University Press, New Haven & London: 2011, 12, 324 pp. Most discussions regarding the Haggadah begin with the tired canard that the Haggadah is one of the most popular books in Jewish literature, if not the most popular, and has been treasured as such throughout the centuries. Over sixty years ago, Isaac Rivkin noted that as a matter of fact, only since the 19th century has the Haggadah become one of the most printed Jewish books. Prior to the 19th century, the Haggadah is neither the most printed nor most written about work in the Jewish cannon.[1] Epstein does not fall prey to this canard nor any other of the many associated with the Haggadah. Dr. Epstein’s survey of four Jewish medieval manuscripts is novel, vibrant, and sheds new light on these manuscripts, as well as Jewish manuscripts and the Haggadah generally. Epstein covers four well-known medieval Haggadah manuscripts:[2] The Birds’ Head Haggadah, The Golden Haggadah,[3] The Rylands Haggadah,[4] and the Brother to the Rylands Haggadah. First, a word about manuscript titles. Sometimes manuscripts are referred to by the city or institution that houses or housed the manuscript, while in other instances, especially when a manuscript contains a unique marking or the like, that unique identifier may be used to describe the manuscript. The Rylands Haggadah (currently housed at the John Rylands Museum, Manchester, UK), is an example of the former, and the Birds’ Head Haggadah is an example of the latter. In the case of the Birds’ Head, most of the figures depicted in the manuscript are drawn not with human heads, but with birds’ heads. Similarly, the Golden Haggadah is another example which gets its title due to the proliferation of gold borders and filler. Finally, the Brother to the Rylands, gets its title from the similarly of its illustrations to that of the Rylands, indicating some connection or modeling between the two manuscripts. As alluded to above, Epstein is not the first to discuss these manuscripts. Indeed, in the case of both the Birds’ Head and the Golden Haggadah, book length surveys have already been published.[5] Epstein, however, differs with his predecessors both in terms of his method as well as what he is willing to assume. Regarding assumptions, previously, many would take the path of least resistance in explaining difficult images and attribute confusing or complex illustrations to errors or lack of precision of the illustrator. Rather than assume error, Epstein gives the illustrations and illustrators their due and, in so far as possible assumes that the images are “both coherent and intentional.” As an extension of his “humility in the face of iconography,” Epstein attempts “to understand how the authors understood it rather than assume that [he] must know better than they did.” He does “not fault the authorship for what” he, “as a twenty-first century viewer, might fail to notice or understand concerning the structure or details of the iconography.” Furthermore, engaging with illustrations not only from tracing the history of how the image came into being but, more importantly, how that image was interpreted and what meaning it carried for its audience throughout its transmission is also one of Epstein’s goals. In furtherance of these goals, Epstein is all too aware of his own limitations and throughout the book, Epstein willingly admits both where the evidence can lead and, what is pure speculation. All of this translates into a highly satisfying and illuminating (no pun intended) perspective on these and Jewish manuscripts in general. The book is divided among the four manuscripts, with each getting its own section, with the exception of the Rylands and its Brother that are included in a single section. At the beginning of each section, all of the relevant pages from the manuscript are reproduced. The reproductions are excellent. This is not always the case in other books that reproduce these images. Indeed, in Narkiss, et al. who compiled an Index of Jewish Art that includes detailed discussions regarding a variety of medieval Haggadah manuscripts, only reproduce the images in black and white.[6] Similarly, Metzger, in her La Haggada Enluminée, also only reproduces the images in black and white (and many times the images are of poor quality). Here, each page containing an image is reproduced in full, in a high quality format that allows the reader to fully appreciate the image under discussion. Appreciating that to obtain similar high quality images requires the purchase of an authorized facsimile edition, which in some instances can be cost prohibitive highlights the importance and attention to detail that characterizes Epstein’s work on the whole. The Birds’ Head Haggadah is the oldest illustrated Haggadah text, dated to around the early 1300s. This manuscript is not the only Jewish manuscript to use zoophilic (the combination of man and beast) images. Zoophilic images can be found in a variety of contexts in Jewish manuscripts. For example, in the manuscript known as Tripartite Machzor, men are drawn normally while the women are drawn with animal heads.[7] Or, the well-known manuscript illustrator Joel ben Simon playfully illustrates the prayer God should save both man and beast, which can be read as God should save the man/beast, with a half human-half beast: When it comes to the Birds’ Head manuscript, a variety of reasons have been offered for its imagery, running the gamut from halachik concerns to the rather incredible notion that the images are actually anti-Semitic with a bird’s beak standing in for the Jewish nose trope. Epstein ably summarizes the positions and based upon a close examination of the illustrations as well as his stated methodology, dismisses much of the prior theories. His ultimate conclusion, which builds upon the halachik position, is more nuanced and, hence, more believable, than his predecessors. The Birds’ Head provides a striking example where Epstein’s unwillingness to simply ignore complexity by claiming error, demonstrates the interpretative rewards offered to a close reader of the illustrations. While most of the images carry a bird’s head, there are a few exceptions. Most notably, non-Jews, both corporal and spiritual do not. Instead, non-Jewish humans as well as angels have blank circles instead of faces. But, there is one scene that poses a problem. One illustration shows the Jews fleeing Egypt (all with birds’ heads), being pursued by Pharaoh and his army. But, unlike the rest of the figures in Pharaoh’s army, two figures appear with birds’ heads. Some write this off to carelessness on the illustrator’s part. Epstein, who credits his (then) ten-year old son for a novel explanation, offers that these two figures are Datan and Aviram, two prominent members of the erev rav, those Jews who elected to remain behind. The inclusion of these persons, and allowing them to remain with their “Jewish” bird’s head, may be a statement regarding sin, and specifically, the Jewish view that even when a Jew sins, they still retain their Jewish identity. Sin, and including sinners as Jews, are motifs that are highlighted on Pesach with the mention of the wicked son and perhaps is also indicated with this illustration. The illustrator could have left Datan and Aviram out entirely or decided to mark them some other way rather than the Birds’ head. Thus, utilizing this explanation allows for the illustrator to enable a broader discussion about not only the exodus and the Egyptian army’s chase, but expands the discussion to sin, repentance, Jewish identity, inclusiveness and exclusiveness and other related themes.

(click to enlarge) Epstein’s discussions of the other manuscripts are similarly eye-opening. For instance, the Golden Haggadah is an example of the Sefard manuscript Haggadah genre. Manuscript haggadahs are placed in two broad categories, Ashkenaz and Sefard. The former’s illustrations appear in the margins and generally explain the text or refer to Pesach scenes such as baking matzo or looking for hametz. The latter’s illustrations appear before the text and are a series of illustrations, appearing either in two or four panels on a single page, depicting the beginning of Jewish history with Adam and Eve, or in the case of the Sarajevo haggadah, the actual creation sequence. The illustrations culminate with the exodus. But, unlike the Ashkenaz examples, the Sefard manuscripts generally do not illustrate the Haggadah text (with the exception of HaLachmanya, a picture of matzo or the like). The Golden Haggadah follows the Sefard conventions and includes the Jewish history scenes. Epstein demonstrates, however, that the images should not just be read chronologically. Rather, the Golden Haggadah illustrator subtly linked events that did not necessarily follow in time. For example, the placement of the water in a scene depicting Jacob’s blessing to Pharaoh is linked to the scene, occurring much later, to the boys being thrown in the Nile and is similarly linked by imagery to Moses being saved from the Nile, as well as Moses rescuing Jethro’s daughters. Epstein connects all of these scenes by noting the unique method and placement of the water in the scenes. But the linkage is not merely water, instead, this interpretation affords insight into God’s blessings, promises, the parameters and methods of His divine punishment of “measure for measure,” gratitude, and salvation. Again, this is but one example where close examination of the illustrations enriches the Haggadah discussion. All of Epstein’s discussions display his keen awareness and erudition regarding illustrations appearing in both the manuscript as well as print Haggadahs. Although the work employs end notes, which we find generally to indicate that the notes are unnecessary for the text, the notes should not be ignored. They are full of interesting sidebars as well as additional information on the illustrations discussed and the history of Haggadah illustration.[8] As a testament to the importance of this work, as well as its accessibility, the book was originally published after Pesach last year (hence our belated review) and, already, before even a single Pesach, its publisher is sold out. The work has already received numerous accolades from numerous others to which we add our small voice. This is an incredible work in terms of its insights, methods, and production values that is a welcome breath of fresh air to stale and repetitive Haggadah genre.

[1] See Isaac Rivkin, The Passover Haggada Through the Generations, New York: 1961, pp. 3-4. [2] We note that unlike most other Jewish books which ceased being produced in manuscript at, or soon after the advent of the printing press, manuscripts of the Haggadah are still being commissioned even today. This is not to suggest that all Haggadah manuscripts are equal. Many of the haggadah manuscripts produced after the printing press are very similar, and especially those produced after the Venice 1609 and Amsterdam 1695 and 1712, most of the illustrations that adore manuscript haggadahs are identical or virtually identical to their printed counterparts. See, e.g., Haviva Peled-Carmel, Illustrated Haggadot of the Eighteenth Century, Jerusalem, The Israel Museum: 1983 (Hebrew). [3] The link for viewing the Golden Haggadah at the bottom of page here or in a fully sizable and zoomable image here. [4] The Rylands Haggadah is currently on display at the Met in NYC until September 30, 2012. [5] M. Spitzer, The Birds Head Haggadah of the Bezalel National Art Musuem in Jerusalem, Jerusalem: 1965; B. Narkiss, The Golden Haggadah: A Fourteenth-Century Illuminated Hebrew Manuscript in the British Museum, London: 1970. [6] Iconograhical Index of Hebrew Illuminated Manuscripts, ed. Bezalel Narkiss & Gabrielle Sed-Rajina, vol. I, Jerusalem: 1976 (containing Birds’ Head among other Haggadah manuscripts); similarly, see Narkiss’ Hebrew Illuminated Manuscripts in the British Isles, Oxford & New York: 1982. [7] On the use of zoophilic images in the Tripartite Machzor, see Zsofia Buda, “Animals Gazing at Women, Zoocephalic Figures in the Tripartite Machzor,” in Animal Diversities, ed. Gerhard Jaritz & Alice Choyke, Krems: 2005, pp. 136-64 (available at this link). The Tripartite Machzor is another example of an unusual manuscript title. Its title is derived from Bezalel Narkiss’s conclusion that the work is comprised of three parts, one of which is housed in the Kaufmann Collection in Budapest, Hungry, while the other two parts are currently in the Bodleian Library at Oxford. The Kaufmann portion is available online here. [8] We note that Epstein’s discussion of headcovering is in conflict with Rivkin. Compare Epstein, p. 278 n.2 with Isaac Rivkin, “The Responsum of R. Judah Areyeh of Modena on Going Bareheaded,” in Sefer Ha-Yovel le-Kovod Levi Ginzberg, ed. Saul Lieberman, New York: 1946, pp. 401-03 n.1.

The Pesach Drasha of the Rokeach

The Pesach Drasha of the Rokeach by Eliezer Brodt By way of introduction, in the Shulchan Aruch it is written that thirty days before Pesach one should learn the halachos of Pesach. As Pesach is fast approaching, it is appropriate to discuss anew a post from five years ago, of which this is an update. Every once in a while we are privileged to have the venerable printing house Mekizei Nirdamim release something special from the great rishonim (aside from their great journal Kovetz Al Yad).[1] Five years ago they published a critical edition of a Pesach Drasha of R. Eliezer Rokeach of Worms for the first time, edited by Professor Simcha Emanuel. In this post I would like to discuss some of the many things of interest in the work and also comment in general on the great job of Simcha Emanuel did with this work. One of the reasons why I am updating this post is I was just told by Mekezei Nirdamim that they only have a few remaining copies and it will not be reprinted. I am selling copies for $16, while supplies last. For more information feel free to contact me at [email protected]. Part of the proceeds of this sale will be going to help support the efforts of the Seforim Blog. This drasha seems to have been an actual drasha that the Rokeach delivered, although it is pretty obvious from the length that it was not said at one time but probably a compilation of a few derashos recited at different times. The style is mostly halacha, with a bit of aggadah in the beginning and also scattered throughout. He goes through many halachos of Pesach starting with kashering the utensils, getting rid of the chametz, and baking the matzos. He then continues on at great length to discuss all the aspects of the Seder. Then he deals with what to do if one finds chametz on Pesach and he ends with some halachos of Yom Tov in general. I would like to mention some of the interesting points found in the actual drasha. First, the Rokeach records that his family custom was when they burned the chametz they would do so with the lulavim and hoshanos which they had saved from Sukkos (p.79). [2] While talking about the minhag to bake matzos Erev Yom Tov he writes that one should not bake the matzos for the second night until the second night itself, because of chavivah mitzvah bi’shaatah (p. 92). [3] He states that one should go to the Mikvah before Yom Tov. [4] The Rokeach writes that if the Yom Tov falls out on Shabbos we do not smell hadassim for besamim on Motzei Shabbos, because there is no loss of the extra soul, as the soul remains for the duration of Yom Tov. (p. 93).[4a] In a note Professor Emanuel points out that others disagree with this point and hold that one does in fact make a blessing on the besamim when Saturday night is still Yom Tov. While talking about the washing for karpas he writes that one should make ‘al nitelas yadaim (p. 96), whereas today we do not. [5] He then goes on to say that we eat a full kezayis for karpas, which is something we also do not do – we purposely eat less than a kezayis. [6] (p. 97, 152). He notes his family minhag was to hold the cup of wine during the recitation of vehi she’amdah (p. 99 and p. 126) [7], the common custom today. He describes how his family poured out the wine when they said the ten Makkot (p. 101, see also, p. 127). The importance of this last custom is that until the publication of this drasha, although many have recorded this custom in the name of the Rokeach, it appeared in none of his writings (as I plan on discussing at length in a forthcoming article). In regard to washing mayim acharonim at the seder, although others argue he writes one should wash (p. 106). [8] In addition to all this Professor Emanuel has included extensive notes and comments throughout the drasha, which are excellent. These provide additional sources for various things mentioned in the drasha, also including interesting sources from unpublished manuscripts. To list some of the topics that he deals with in the notes: Making matzos with pictures on them (pp. 129-134), about the after רבון עלומים וכו nussach of the Haggdaah that some said pp. 53- 57) [9], and reasons for the prohibition of) ביד חזקה kitniyos (p. 51).[10] One very interesting thing which Emanuel points out is the difference about how a name is spelled in various manuscripts. Specifically, whether the Rokeach’s father-in-law was Eliezer or Elazar. If it was Elazar than it turns out that the Rokeach, whose first name was also Elazar, apparently ignored the will of his teacher, Rebbi Yehuda ha-Hassid – who disallows such marriages in his famous Tzavaah. Although, most likely, the Rokeach was married even prior to coming in contact with Rebbi Yehuda ha-Hassid, his practice demonstrates that people, prior to Rebbi Yehuda ha-Hassid’s pronouncement did not observe or even know of this custom. (pp. 57- 59). Emanuel than brings early evidence that part of the Tzavaah were strictly for the family.[11] In this work we find an early source not related to Pesach but to Shavous – such as to eat Milchigs (p. 39, 110). [12] Aside from this small work (152 pp.) containing this very important drasha of the Rokeach it also includes many important pieces of information in regard to the Rokeach in general and especially to two works of his that were unknown. There is a lengthy discussion about a sefer of the Rokeach on shechitah and treifos as well as another sefer – Sefer Ma’aseh Rokeach. [1] For more information on this special, 150-year old publishing house, see the pamphlet printed by them in 1964, called Chevrat Mekizei Nirdamim. [2] For further on this custom see Sefer HaMaskil pp. 33-34; the important comment of R. Honig in Yerushaseinu 1 (2007), pp. 208-209; Sefer Kushiyos pp. 168-169 and the notes therein; D. Sperber, Minhagei Yisrael, vol. 2 p. 193. See also what I wrote in Yerushaseinu 2 (2008), p. 219. [3] For general sources on baking Matzos on Erev Pesach see Rabbi. G. Oberlander, Minhag Avoseinu Beyadeinu, pp. 327-255. [4] For a very detailed discussion of this topic see my Bein Kesseh Le-assur, pp.48-96. [4a] See; Shmuel and Zev Safrai, Haggadas Chazal, pp.54-55. [5] See; Haggadah Shevivei Eish, p. 152; Y. Tabory, Pesach Dorot, pp. 216- 244. See also what I wrote in my Bein Kesseh Le-assur, p. 152. [6] See; Y. Tabory, Pesach Dorot, pp. 264-265. [7] See; Haggadah Shevivei Eish p. 109. [8] See; Tabory, ibid, p. 244-249. [9] See; Pirush Meyuchas le-Rashi in the Torat Hayyim Haggadah, p. 110; Shmuel and Zev Safrai, Haggadas Chazal, pp. 84-85; Simcha Emanuel, “‘When God Descended to Egypt’: The Story of a Passage in the Passover Haggadah,” Tarbiz 77:1 (2008): 109-132 (Hebrew). [10] See; Y. Ta-Shma, “Prohibition of Kitniyot on Pesach,” Early Franco-German Ritual and Custom (Jerusalem: Hebrew University Magnes Press, 1992), pp.271-282 (Hebrew); Rabbi. G. Oberlander, Minhag Avoseinu Beyadeinu, pp. 410-438. [11] On all this see also my Likutei Eliezer, pp. 51-53. [12] See; Rabbi. G. Oberlander, Minhag Avoseinu Beyadeinu, pp.623-647. I hope to return to this topic shortly.

Purim roundup

Since Purim is almost upon us, here are some older Seforim Blog posts dealing with Purim themes (arranged chronologically): Purim, Mixed Dancing and Kill Joys (3.06.2006); Mahar”i Mintz permitted cross dressing and mixed dancing on Purim. Also discussed are other rabbinic reactions to Purim merrymaking. Review of Reckless Rites by Elliott Horowitz (4.07.2006). This controversial book subtitled “Purim and the Legacy of Jewish Violence” discusses incidents of Jewish violence toward non- Jews on Purim and the way Jewish historians sometimes downplayed these incidents. Tussle Over Horowitz’s Book (10.11.2006) discusses the resulting fallout of this book, whose thesis was disliked by Hillel Halkin in Commentary. The Origins of Hamentashen in Jewish Literature: A Historical- Culinary Survey (2.28.2007), a classic post by Eliezer Brodt on this relatively recent Jewish custom. Judah Wistinetzky and Mishloach Manot to his American friends (3.02.2007); Menachem Butler points out a post by Ari Kinsberg about a sefer distributed as a mishloach manot gift to the author’s friends. Purim and Parodies (3.17.2008) by Eliezer Brodt. Eliezer discusses everything from a humorous Purim piyut included in Mahzor Vitry, to Kalonymus ben Kalonymus’s Massekhet Purim to the very rare Sefer Ha-kundas, a 19th century parody of the laws of trouble-making in the style of the Shulhan Aruch. The Origins of Hamentashen in Jewish Literature: A Historical- Culinary Survey Revisited by Eliezer Brodt (3.18.2008). Eliezer revisits his post, updated with many additions and corrections. “‘Most of all you’ve got to hide it from the kids…’ Reading Esther before Bed” by Elliott Horowitz (2.25.2010). This post discusses bible tales adopted for children in softened form. The Origin of Ta’anit Esther by Mitchell First (3.3.2011). In this recent post, it is argued that this fast’s origin is even later than the original She’iltot (8th century). *** Also, here are a few Purim posts from fellow-traveller On the Main Line: A duel fought with swords on Purim, 1891 a duel fought with swords on Purim, between a Jew and a modern-day Haman. How Moses Montefiore spent his time on Purim – giving matanot la-evyonim. 1841 Purim in New York, to bang at Haman’s name or not to bang?

להשתכר על ידי יין בפורים, זו ?מצוה או עבירה להשתכר על ידי יין בפורים, זו מצוה או עבירה?נכתב ע”י משה -Editor’s Note: Rabbi Moshe Zuriel’s latest book, Le צוריאל Sha’ah u-le-Dorot (two volumes) has just appeared. At over 800 pages, it deals with all sorts of Torah matters, both halakhah פסקו רבותינו: “חייב איניש לבסומי בפוריא עד דלא .and hashkafah ידע בין ארור המן לברוך מרדכי” (שו”ע או”ח סימן תרצ”ה, סעיף ב’). העיר עליו רמ”א: “ויש אומרים דאינו צריך להשתכר כל כך, אלא ישתה יותר מלימודו [מהרגלו] ויישן. ומתוך שיישן אינו יודע בין ארור המן לברוך מרדכי”. בדורנו ישנם כמה אברכים צעירים הבוחרים להיות שיכורים ממש. אצל חלק מהם אין הפסד גדול בדבר, אבל אצל הרבה מתחילים הם לומר שטויות ויש המתחילים לצעוק ברחובות. יש המקיאים מאכל שבמעיהם לעיני הרואים, ויש הנופלים ברחובות מפני מעידת רגליהם. חילול השם בדבר הוא רב. באנו כאן לברר בעזרת ה’ אם דעת רבותינו נוחה מכך, ונביא סקירה מן גדולי הראשונים והאחרונים (ולא לפי סדרי זמניהם). [א’]ראשית יש להבחין מה פירוש מלה זו “לבסומי”. יש בארמית שתי מילים עבור מי שמושפע נפשית ושכלית מהיין. השיכור “שכרותו של לוט” עד שאיננו מבין מה נעשה איתו, נקרא “רויא” כלשון “שבקיה לרויא דמנפשיה נפיל” (שבת לב ע”א) והוא לשון מקרא “למען ספות הרוה” (דברים כ”ט, י”ח). עיין רשימה גדולה ב”ערוך השלם” (קוהוט) ערך: ר”ו. לעומתו “בסם” הוא מלשון פרסית, ענינה “משתה ושמחה” (ע”פ הערוך), אבל טרם הגיע לאיבוד החושים. אמנם בלשון הקודש יש רק מלה אחת המתארת שני המצבים והיא “שיכור”. אמנם כיצד מחלקים ביניהם? ע”י תוספת המלים “הגיע לשכרותו של לוט” או “לא הגיע לשכרותו של לוט” (עירובין סה ע”א). ולכן רש”י (על מגילה ז ע”ב ד”ה ואיבסום) לא חילק ביניהם וכתב “נשתכרו”, אבל הדיוק בגמרא הוא “לבסומי” ולא כתוב “למרוי”, כלומר התכוונו לדרגא החלשה יותר. הביאור היקר הזה למדנו מדברי “קרבן נתנאל” על הרא”ש (מסכת מגילה פרק א’, ס”ק י) הכותב: “לא קאמר כאן מחייב למרוי, דהתרגום של “וישכר בתוך אהלו” [אצל נח] הוא רוי. אבל הכוונה שמחויב להיטיב לבו ע”י שתיית יין. עד דלא ידע, זהו עד ולא עד בכלל”. עד כאן לשונו. [אמנם רש”י על מגילה ז ע”ב כתב מלה אחת “להשתכר”, כי בלשון הקודש אין לנו הבדלי ניב בין בסומי לבין רויא]. [ב’]וכן כתב ספר של”ה (“שני לוחות הברית”) בסוף פרשת תצוה (מהד’ אמשטרדם, דף שכ”ט ע”ב): “יש לדקדק דקדוק הלשון שאמר ‘חייב לבסומי’. כי השכרות הגדול אינו נקרא ‘בסומי’, רק ‘מבוסם’ נקרא מי שאינו שיכור כל כך. על כן אני אומר שאדרבה, מאמרם זה הזהירנו באזהרה שלא (נשכר) [נשתכר] כל כך, רק חייב איניש להשאר מבוסם”. עד כאן לשונו. [ג’]ובאמת אחרי שפרשנים הללו האירו את עינינו בהבנת מלת “לבסומי”, אפשר כי גם ר’ יוסף קארו הבין גם הוא כך. כי בפירושו “בית יוסף” על הטור (סימן תרצ”ה) שכידוע שימש בסיס לדברי השו”ע שהוא רק קיצור מדבריו בבית יוסף, כתב: “וכתב הר”ן בשם רבינו אפרים דמההוא עובדא דקם רבה בסעודת פורים ושחט לר’ זירא (מגילה ז ע”ב) אידחי ליה מימרא דרבא, ולא שפיר דמי למיעבד הכי. [תוספת המעתיק: ובמיוחד שהרי לשנה הבאה כאשר רבה הזמין את ר’ זירא שוב לבוא לסעודתו, ר’ זירא סירב באומרו “לא בכל שעתא ושעתא מתרחיש ניסא” ובזה הגמרא מסיימת את הנידון. כדלהלן בשם הב”ח]. [ד’]כותב על זה הב”ח שם: “והנכון מה שכתב הרב הגדול רבינו אפרים דמהך עובדא דשחטיה רבה לר’ זירא אידחייא ליה מימרא דרבא, ולאו שפיר למיעבד הכי. וכן כתב בעל המאור והר”ן משמו. ונראה דמהך טעמא סידר בעל התלמוד להך עובדא דרבה ור’ זירא בתר מימרא דרבא, למימרא דהכי הוי הלכתא ולדחויי לרבא. ומיהו דוקא לבסומי עד דלא ידע בין ארור המן לברוך מרדכי, הוא דדחינן לה. אבל מיהו צריך לשתות הרבה מלימודו שייטב לבו במשתה”]. [ה’] וכדברי הב”ח כתב “שבלי הלקט” (סי’ רא). וממשיך “בית יוסף” שם: ב”ארחות חיים” (לר’ יונתן לוניל, הל’ פורים אות לח כתב) חייב אינש לבסומי בפוריא, לא שישתכר, שהשכרות איסור גמור, ואין לך עבירה גדולה מזו, שהוא גורם לגלוי עריות ושפיכת דמים וכמה עבירות זולתן. אך שישתה יותר מלימודו [מההרגל שלו] קצת” עכ”ל “בית יוסף” וכנראה בזה סיכום דעתו כי לא הביא דיעה נגדית. ובכן בעל כרחנו כך היתה כוונתו גם במה שכתב בשולחן ערוך, “ביסומי” ולא “שכרות”. [ו’] וכדברי “ארחות חיים” כתב ג”כ בעל “המאורות” (על מגילה ז’). [ז’] וכן כתב כלשון זו ה”כל בו”. [ח’] והעתיק הדברים הנ”ל “אליהו רבה” ((על אורח חיים, סימן תרצ”ה

וכןט’] כתב המאירי (על מגילה ז’, ע”ב) “ומכל מקום אין אנו] מצווים להשתכר ולהפחית עצמנו מתוך השמחה, שלא נצטוינו על שמחה של הוללות ושל שטות אלא בשמחה של תענוג שיגיע מתוכה לאהבת השם יתברך והודאה על הנסים שעשה לנו”. [י’]ומפורש כתב “חיי אדם” (הלכות פורים) “ואמנם היודע בעצמו שיזלזל אז במצוה מן המצוות, בנטילת ידיים וברכה וברכת המזון או שלא יתפלל מנחה או מעריב או שינהוג קלות ראש, מוטב שלא ישתכר”. [י”א]ודבריו הובאו ב”ביאור הלכה” (“משנה ברורה”, סי’ צ”ה, ד”ה עד דלא ידע). [י”ב] והעתיק הדברים “קיצור שולחן ערוך” לר’ שלמה גנצפריד (קמב ס”ק ו). [י”ג] וכן כתב תוכחות קשות על המצב המופרז בימיו “מטה משה” (ר’ משה, תלמידו של מהרש”ל, בס”ק תתריב) “עד כי נדמה לרוב המון [עם] שבימים אלו הותר לכל אדם לפרוק עול תורה ומצוות, וכל המרבה להיות משוגע הרי זה משובח. וכל זה בלי ספק רע ומר והוא עון פלילי, כי לא הותר לנו רק שמחה, לא שחוק וקלות ראש” עכ”ל. [וכל הלשון הזו הועתקה ע”י ספר של”ה (סוף ענייני פורים), גם העתיק הביטוי “נדמה לרוב המון וכו’ וכל המרבה להיות משוגע הרי זה משובח” (דף רס”א). [י”ד] דעת הרמב”ם. הזכרנו כבר שהרמ”א פסק שהמצוה היא שישתה קצת יין ויירדם, ובזמן שינתו איננו מבחין בין “ארור המן” ל”ברוך מרדכי”. מה המקור לדבריו? הרמב”ם (הל’ מגילה, פ”ב הט”ו) שכתב: “ושותה יין עד שישתכר וירדם בשכרותו”. מפני מה הרמב”ם הוסיף שתי המלים האחרונות הללו? והרי אינן כתובות בגמרא? אלא בא לבטל פרשנות מוטעית שהכוונה שיכור בשכרותו של לוט (עיין דברים נמרצים נגד השכרות במורה נבוכים, חלק ג’, פרק ח’). אלא כוונת חז”ל שילך לישון, ובמשך זמן שינתו אינו מבחין בין מרדכי להמן. זהו ביאור לשון מליצית של חז”ל “עד דלא ידע”. ומכאן העתיק רמ”א. [והגאון ר’ עובדיה יוסף בספרו “חזון עובדיה” (על הלכות פורים, עמ’ קע”ה) מביא מהספר “סנסן ליאיר”, עמ’ קכא שהמלה “פוריא” היא “מטה” (בבא מציעא כג ע”ב). כלומר “חייב לבסומי בפוריא להיות מבוסם על מיטתו, ואז יירדם]. [ט”ו]גם הגר”א סבור שאין להשתכר כפשוטו. בביאורו לשו”ע (או”ח סימן תרצ”ה) מבאר את המצוה “עד דלא ידע” רוצה לומר [שלא ידע להבחין על מה יש להודות יותר] בין נקמת המן לבין גדולת מרדכי. והוא מה שאמרו (ברכות לג ע”א) גדולה נקמה שניתנה בין שתי אותיות [שמות קודש]. ואמרו גדולה דעה [שניתנה בין ב’ שמות קודש]. וכיון שניטלה דיעה, לא ידע”. כלומר יש כאן הבחנה במחשבת ישראל אם לשמוח על החיובי או על השלילי. היהודי האמיתי שמח מאוד על ביעור הרשעות, ויש בזה כבוד שמים, כדלהלן. כך כותב הגר”א בביאורו לספרא דצניעותא (תחילת פרק ב’, עמ’ י”ז-י”ח): “וענין הכבוד [של הקב”ה] כאשר נכפין כל הדינים, והרשעים כָלים [כ’ מנוקדת קמץ], ושמו מתגדל בעולם כמ”ש ‘הראיני נא את כבודך וכו’ (שמות ל”ג, י”ח) ויעבור ה’ על פניו וכו’ הנה אנכי כורת ברית, נגד כל עמך אעשה נפלאות’ (שמות ל”ד, י’). וכן בקריעת ים סוף וכו’ ‘ואכבדה בפרעה ובכל חילו’ (שמות י”ד, ד’) וכו’. וכן לעתיד לבוא וכו’ ונאמר ‘תכבדני חיית השדה וכו’ (ישעיה מ”ג, כ’). [תוספת המעתיק: שיאכלו את הפגרים של גוג ומגוג שבאו להתגרות בישראל]. והגידו את כבודי בגוים’ (ישעיה ס”ו, י”ט). כי לי תכרע כל בֶרֶך (ישעיה מ”ה, כ”ג). ועוד ‘והתגדִלתי והתקדִשתי לעיני גוים רבים” (יחזקאל ל”ח, כ”ג). והכל שהרשעים כָלים וכו’ לאכפייא דינין”. עד כאן לשון הגר”א. וכמו כן יתרו שהיה גר חדש לא ידע לשמוח על טביעת המצרים בים סוף. כתוב “ויחד ישראל על כל הטובה אשר עשה ה’ לישראל, אשר הצילו מיד מצרים” (שמות י”ח, ט’). הלא משה סיפר לו בפסוק הקודם גם את השלילה: “את כל אשר עשה ה’ לפרעה ולמצרים” (י”ח, ח’). ולמה יתרו לא שמח גם על הרעה שהגיעה למצריים הרודפים? (עיין שם רש”י י”ח, ט’). גם בעלי דעת שלימה ידעו לשמוח על זה. וברור שהבחנה זו בחסדי ה’ עלינו בהגדלתו של מרדכי הצדיק, ומפלתו של המן הרשע, על איזה מהם יש להתפאר יותר. עיון כזה נהיה מטושטש אפילו בשתייה מועטת של יין, ולזה אמרו חז”ל כי די בבסומי ולא צריכים להגיע לשכרותו של לוט. הרי לפנינו שהגר”א שולל שכרות גמורה. אחרת לא היה צריך להביא דברי פרשנות לגמרא דווקא כאן במקום שייעודו לציין לדברי הלכה למעשה בשו”ע. [טז] גם הגאון ר’ אפרים מרגליות (“יד אפרים” על גליון השו”ע או”ח סי’ תרצ”ה) כתב “אין לו להשתכר יותר מדאי, שיתבלבל דעתו ולא יכיר בתוקף הנס כלל. “עד דלא ידע” הוא עד ולא עד בכלל. ומן הגבול הזה והלאה הוא ביטול כוונת חיוב שחייבו חכמים. וכו’ ויש לבסומי רק עד הגבול הזה, ולא יעבור”. אבל לנגדנו עומדים פשטות דברי אריז”ל, שיש להיות שיכור גמור (“שער הכוונות”, ח”ב עמ’ שלב-שלג) לברך את הניצוץ של קדושה שיש בתוך המן “אחר שהוא שיכור ויצא מדעתו”. וזאת היא תמיהה גדולה. אבל כאשר נעיין בגוף הטכסט ניווכח כי אין אלו דברי אריז”ל עצמו. דברי אריז”ל עצמו מסתיימים ארבע פסקאות לפני זה (סוף טור הימני) שם כתוב “עד כאן הגיעו דרושי הרב זלה”ה”. ובהערה בתחתית הדף כתב המעתיק הרב שמואל ויטאל כי רק עד כאן העתיק דברי אריז”ל. ובכן מי הוא המחבר של המשך הדברים, שם כתוב שיש לאדם לצאת מדעתו ממש? אין מנוס מהמסקנה כי אלו הם דברי דרשן אחד שהוסיף הדברים על דברי אריז”ל. במהדורת “שער הכוונות” הקדמון (דף קט סוף ע”ב) כתוב שהם דברי ר’ יעקב ישרוליג”א, לא של אריז”ל. נוסיף לטיעוננו שיש בדבר חילול השם נורא כאשר אברך או רב הידועים לעיני שכניהם וקרובים בציבור הישראלי כמציגים ארחות התורה, אם יהיו שיכורים אין לך בוז וקלסה לתורה יותר מזה. ובמציאות החיים מכירים אנו כי כל הרבנים הגדולים, בין בני פלג הליטאים ובין גדולי אדמורי”ם וכן מקבוצות בני המזרח, אינם משתכרים בפורים. וגם בדורות שהיו לפנינו, לא נודע על מי מהרבנים המפורסמים שהשתכר ממש. גם מה שכותב ר’ יעקב עמדין (בביאורו לסידור תפילות, מהדורת אשכול, חלק ב’, עמ’ תקנ”ח) ששמע מאחרים שאביו ה”חכם צבי” היה מקיים בצעירותו מצוה זו כפשוטה, מזה עצמו יש ראיה לשלול התנהגות זו. כי למה הפסיק אח”כ לנהוג כך כל ימיו? אלא ודאי כי ראה “חכם צבי” שיש הפסד בדבר. כיון שלכל הפחות ששה עשר מגדולי הפוסקים (כפי שפירטנו לעיל) שוללים שכרות גמורה, עלינו ללכת בעקבותיהם. יש לערוך בכל דבר חשבון של ריווח והפסד, ובמיוחד בדבר שיש בו חילול בשם. “אחד שוגג .(’ואחד מזיד בחילול השם” (אבות, פרק ד

The Chanukah Omission

The Chanukah Omission by Eliezer Brodt Every Yom Tov has its famous questions that show up repeatedly in writings and shiurim. Chanukah, too, has its share of well-known questions. In this article, I would like to deal with one famous question that has some not-very-famous answers. A few years ago I dealt with this topic on the Seforim Blog (here). More recently in Ami Magazine (# 50) I returned to some of the topics related to this. This post contains new information as well as corrections that were not included in those earlier articles. The question is, why there is no specialmasechta in the Mishna devoted to Chanukah, as opposed to the otherYamim Tovim which have their own masechta?[1] Over the years, many answers have been given, some based on chassidus, others based on machshava, and still others in a kabbalistic vein.[2] In this article, I will discuss a few different answers. While, answering this question I will touch on some other issues: what exactly is Megillas Taanis, when was it written, and what role did Rabbenu Hakadosh have in the writing of the Mishna. A first source and the seven masechtos At the outset, I would like to point out that the first source I have found thus far that deals with this question is Rabbi Yosef Karo in his work Maggid Mesharim.[3]It is interesting to note, that the most famous question related to Chanukah was also asked by Rabbi Yosef Karo, and is commonly referred to by the name of his sefer, as the “Bais Yosef’s Kasha“.[4] That question, is: Why is Chanukah eight days? Since there was enough oil for one night, what exactly was the miracle of the first night? One of the answers given to the question is based on a famous Rambam that gives an important insight about what Rabbenu Hakodesh included in the Mishna. According to the Rambam, the halachos of tefillin, tzitzis, and mezuzos, as well as the nusach of tefillah and several other areas of halacha are not included in the Mishna at all because these halachos are well-known to אבל דיני [the masses; there was no need to include them.[5 הציצית והתפלין והמזוזות וסדר עשייתן והברכות הראויות להן וכן הדינים השייכים לכך והשאלות שנתעוררו בהן אין ממטרת חבורנו לדבר בכך לפי שאנחנו מפרשים והרי המשנה לא קבעה למצות אלו דברים מיוחדים הכוללים את כל משפטיהם כדי שנפרשם, וטעם הדבר לדעתי פרסומן בזמן חבור המשנה, ושהם היו דברים מפורסמים רגילים אצל ההמונים והיחידים לא נעלם ענינם מאף אחד, ולפיכך לא היה מקום לדעתו לדבר בהם, כשם שלא קבע סדר התפלה כלומר נוסחה וסדר מנוי שליח צבור מחמת פרסומו של דבר, לפי שלא חסר סדור אלא חבר ספר There are some ).דינים (פירוש , המשנהמנחות פרק ד משנה א achronim who posit that this rationale applies to Chanukah, as well. That is, Chanukah was also well-known, and that’s why it was not necessary to include it in the Mishna.[6] Rabbi Yaakov Schorr has a problem with the statement by the Rambam that the laws and details of tefillin and mezuzah were well known—these mitzvos are very complicated and contain many details. Indeed, they are arguably much more complex than Kriyas Shema, which does have its own mesechta. To illustrate this point, the Chofetz Chaim’s son writes that his father spent months working on just two simanim of Hilchos Tefillin for his work, the Mishna Berura.[7] So too, there are many halachos related to Chanukah, and it is hard to believe that everyone knew all the halachos. However, the Maharatz Chayes, who bases his answer to the question on this same concept of the Rambam, adds an important point which would answer Rabbi Schorr’s problem. He says that the masses all knew about lighting the menorah. All the rest of the halachos of Chanukah which are discussed in the Gemara are from after the period of the Mishna, he says, and that is why Rebbe did not include them in the Mishna.[8] Rabbi Schorr resolves his own problem by suggesting that there was a Maseches Soferim devoted to the laws of tefillin, but it was lost. He claims that it forms the basis of the Maseches Soferim which we have today.[9] With this introduction, we can perhaps understand the following answers to our question, which are based on the assumption that there was a Maseches Chanukah which was lost. The Rishonim refer to “seven minormasechtos “; however, the earlier Achronim did not have these masechtos. Today, we do have “seven masechtos “, although, as we shall see, not everyone agrees that these are the same seven masechtos that the Rishonim had. During the period that these masechtos were unknown, there was some speculation as to what they contained. Rav Avraham Ben HaGra quotes his father, the Gra, in regard to what the exact titles of the seven masechtos were, and he told אמנם [him that amongst the titles wasMaseches Chanukah.[10 שמעתי מאדוני אבי הגאון נר”ו שהשבע מסכות קטנות המה חוץ מאשר נמצא לנו והן מסכת תפלין ומסכת חנוכה ומסי’ מזוזה. (רב ופעלים As far as we know today, we have all the seven (הקדמה דף ח ע”א masechtos and none of them are about Chanukah.[11] But it is possible that there was such a masechta which was lost. Rav David Luria (Radal) assumes as much and uses this assumption to understand the Teshuvos Hagaonim and says that it evidences ובא אלינו [additional masechtos that are no longer extant.[12 איש חכם וחסיד זקן ודרש בישיבה כתיב ופן תשא עיניך השמימה וראית את השמש זה נדר ואת הירח זו שבועה… וסדר משנה תוספת על סדרי שלנו ראינו בידו שהיה מביא ולא זכינו להעתיק שסבתו גדולה ונחפז ללכת The .(ואתם אחינו הזהרו בענין זה וטוב לכם (שערי תשובה, סימן קמג Vilna Gaon’s great-nephew reports that the Gra said there was even a masechta titled Maseches Emuna, which also appears to ואמר לי איך ששמע מדו”ז הגאון מו”ה אלי’ ז”ל [have been lost.[13 שהיו כמה וכמה מסכות על המדות כמו מסכתא ענוה ומסכתא בטחון The one we already had A different.וכדומה רק שנאבדה ממנו answer given by many [14] is that the reason why Rebbe did not have a whole masechta about Chanukah was because there was one already: Megillas Taanis! In fact, in one of the editions of Megillas Taanis (the original edition with thePirush ha- Eshel), it says on the frontispiece: “Megillas Taanis, which is Masseches Chanukah.” The Perush ha-Eshel on Megilas Taanis wants to suggest that the Gra did not mean that there was a masechta titled Chanukah. Instead, the Gra meantMegillas Taanis. Indeed, in earlier printings of theShas , Megillas Taanis was included with the Masechtos Ketanos.[15] Whether or not the Gra himself meant Megillas Taanis, many do say that Megillas Taanis is really Maseches Chanukah, since the most important and lengthy chapter is about Chanukah. Therefore the answer to why Rebbi did not include a masechta about Chanukah was simply because there was one already— Megillas Taanis. This answer is backed up with a statement found in the Behag, which says “that elders of Beis Shamai and Hillel wrote זקני בית שמאי ובית הלל,… והם כתבו מגילת [Megillas Taanis.”[16 To better understand this, an explanation about the …תעניות nature of Megillas Taanis is needed. Megillas Taanis is our earliest written halachic text, dating from much before our Mishnayos. Some say it was so well-known that even children knew it by heart.[17] In the standard Megillas Taanis, there are two parts: one written in Aramaic, which is a list of various days which one should not fast or say hespedim on. This part is only two hundred and seventy words long. The other part was written in Hebrew and includes a lengthier description of each particular day. The longest entry in the latter part is about Chanukah. It contains reasons for the Yom Tov and some of the halachos. With this in mind, it’s not so strange to say that there is no need for a special masechta about Chanukah. Since in the earliest written text we have there is a lengthy entry about Chanukah, why would Rabbenu Hakodesh have to repeat it? The problem with this answer is that while Megillas Taanis dates from before our Mishnayos, it contains significant additions from a later time. The Maharatz Chayes and Radal say that the Aramaic part was written very early, at the point when it was not permissible to write down Torah Sheba’al Peh. At a later point, when it was permitted, the Hebrew parts were added. Maharatz Chayes says that it was after the era of Rabbenu Hakodesh. Earlier than him, Rav Yaakov Emden wrote (in his introduction to his notes on Megillas Taanis) that it was completed at the end of the era of the Tannaim. The bulk of the discussion regarding Chanukah that appears in Megillas Taanis is in the Hebrew part. It doesn’t make sense that Rebbi did not include Chanukah in the Mishna because of sections of Megillas Taanis that had yet to be written.[18] The Gedolim who first suggested that Megillas Taanis is the reason that Rabbenu Hakodesh did not include Chanukah in Mishnayos did not realize that it was written at two different time periods. However, Rabbi Dovid Horowitz in an article in Hapeles turns the historical difficulty on its head when he argues, based on Tosafos, that the person who wrote the Hebrew parts ofMegillas Taanis was Rabbenu Hakodesh.[19] The problem with Rabbi Horowitz’s point is that it seems most likely that the Hebrew portion was written later than Rabbenu Hakodesh, and most do not agree with Tosafos on this point. [20] Therefore, this answer does not explain the omission of Chanukah from the Mishna according to most authorities.[21] Another answer in the same vein was suggested by Rabbi S.Z. Schick. Rav Schick conjectures that there was a Sefer Hashmonaim written by Shammai and Hillel which recorded the nissim of Chanukah, and therefore, there was no separate Mishna.[22] This seems to be based on the quote from the Behag we brought earlier. Others say this might be a reference to Sefer Makabbim or Megillas Antiyochus. Although it is likely that these two works are from early times, it is not clear how early.[23] As an aside, there is a book bearing the title Maseches Chanukah, but it was written as a parody, similar to Maseches Purim of Rav Kalonymus[24]. Rebellion, Romans, and the Power of Tradition Another explanation for the Chanukah omission is from theEdos Beyehosef, who quotes a Yerushalmi[25] which relates the following: A child was born to the King Trajanus on Tisha B’av, and the child died on Chanukah. The Jews were not sure whether or not to light neros Chanukah, but in the end, they did. The king’s wife told him to come back from a war that he was in middle of fighting in בימי !order to fight the Jews who were rebelling against him טרוגיינוס הרשע נולד לו בן בתשעה באב והיו מתענין מתה בתו בחנוכה והדליקו נירות שלחה אשתו ואמרה לו עד שאת מכבש את הברבריים בוא וכבוש את היהודים שמרדו בך חשב מיתי לעשרה יומין ואתא לחמשה אתא ואשכחון עסיקין באורייתא בפסוקא ישא עליך גוי מרחוק מקצה הארץ וגומ’ אמר לון מה מה הויתון עסיקין אמרון ליה הכין וכן אמר לון ההוא גברא הוא דחשב מיתי לעשרה יומין ואתא לחמשה והקיפן ליגיונות והרגן אמר לנשיהן נשמעות אתם לליגיונותי ואין אני הורג אתכם אמרון ליה מה דעבדת בארעייא עביד בעילייא ועירב דמן בדמן והלך הדם בים עד קיפרוס באותה השעה נגדעה קרן ישראל ועוד אינה עתידה The .(לחזור למקומה עד שיבוא בן דוד (תלמוד ירושלמי, סוכה, פרק ה Edos Beyehosef writes that Rabbenu Hakadosh chose not to include Chanukah in the Mishna. If a simple lighting of neiros caused such a reaction from our enemies, all the more so if this would be included in our crucial text—the Mishna.[26] וכתיבת דיני נר חנוכה יש בה פירסום יותר מהדלקה מפני שהדלקה היא בבתי ישראל בזמן מועט חי’ ימים בשנה חצי שעה בכלל לילה ואפ’ זה סמיה בידן להדליק בפנים אם יש חשש סכנה אבל דבר בכתב קיים כל הימים ומתפשט בעולם על ידי כל אדם המעתיקם כל מה שרוצה… ומפני זה Rabbi Yehoshua Preil inEglei Tal …השמיט רבי כתיבת דיני חנוכה relates that the Roman emperor, Antoninus, was a good friend of Rebbi, and he allowed the Jews to start keeping Shabbos and other Mitzvos. However, since he had just become king, allowing the Jews to celebrate Chanukah was dangerous for his kingdom. Therefore, Rebbi did not speak about this Yom Tov כי הנה אנדריונוס קיסר אחרי הכניעו את המורדים [openly. [27 בביתר שפך כאש חמתו על כל ישראל וישבת חגם, חרשם ושבתם כי גזר על שבת ויום טוב מלה ונדה וכיוצא בו, אולם בימי המלך הבא אחריו אנטוניוס פיוס ידידו של רבי רוח לישראל כמעט, אך כנראה לא השיב את גזרת ההולך לפניו בדבר חנוכה, כי באמת יקשה גם על מלך חסיד כמוהו להניח חג לאומי כזה לעם אשר זה מעט הערה למות נפשו ואך בעמל רב נגרע קרנו זה שנות מספר, ועל כן לא היה יכול רבינו הקדוש ,Rabbi Reuven Margolios answers …נשיא ישראל לדבר בזה בפומי along these lines, that the Romans at the time were interested in the Torah She-be’al Peh, specifically concerned that there was nothing in Torah She-be’al Peh that was against the non- Jews. Thus, in order that the Romans shouldn’t have the wrong idea about the Jews’ loyalty to the government, Rebbi did not ובכן כאשר תלמי [want to include Chanukah in the Mishna.[28 המלך בזמנו צוה להעתיק לו התורה שבכתב לידע מה כתיב בה כן התענייה הנציבות לידע תוכן התורה שבעל פה … דרישה כזאת היא אשר יכלה להמריץ את נשיא ישראל להתעודד ולערוך בספר גלוי לכל העמים תורת היהודים וקבלתם יסודי התורה שבעל פה להתודע ולהגלות שאין בה הטחת דברים נגד כל אומה ולשון ולא כל תעודה מדינית. ואחר אשר חשב רבי שספרו יבוקר מאנשי מדע העומדים מחוץ ליהודת שיחרצו עליו משפטם לפני כס הממשלה המרכזית ברומא. נבין למה השמיט ממשנתו דברים חשובים עקרים בתורת ישראל … כן לא שנה ענין חנוכה והלכותיה במשנה, בעוד אשר להלכות פורים קבע מסכת מיוחדת, שזהו לאשר כל כאלו היו למרות רוח הרומיים שחשבום כענינים פוליטיים חגיגת Rabbi Dov Berish Ashkenazi writes .הנצחון הלאומי ותוקת חפשיותו that since the Chanukah miracle was to show us the authenticity of the transmission of Torah from Moshe Rabbeinu, the story of Chanukah was not written down— it is just based on mesorah[29]. Along these lines, Rabbi Alexander Moshe Lapidos answers that the reason Chanukah isn’t written down is לא נכתבה מגילת [to show the power ofTorah She-be’al Peh.[30 חנוכה, לפי שנתקנה להורות תוקף תורה שבעל פה, ותולדתיה כיוצא שלא נכתבה… חנוכה המורה על תורה שבעל פה ע”כ לא ניתנה להכתב… (תורת Rav Shlomo Zalman Auerbach .)הגאון רבי אלכסנדר משה, עמ’ רנו says something similar. He answers that the main bris between us and Hashem is the Torah She-be’al Peh. The Greeks wanted to take this away from us, yet Hashem made miracles so that it remained with us. That is why this mitzvah is so special to us יש להבין אם [and that is why it is not written down openly.[31 מצוה זו כ”כ חביבה היא לנו, כמו שכתב הרמב”ם שמצוה חביבה היא עד מאד, למה באמת לא ניתנה ליכתב, אולם עיקר כריתת ברית שכרת הקב”ה עם ישראל הוא רק בעבור תורה שבעל פה כמו שכתב בגיטין ס’ ע”ב ומשום כך הואיל ומלכות יון הרשעה רצתה שלא יהי’ לנו ח”ו חלק באלקי ישראל, לכן נתחבבה מצוה זו ביותר שנשארה כולה תורה שבעל פה אשר רק על ידי תורה שבעל פה איכא כריתת ברית בינינו ובין ה’ ולכן אפילו במשניות לא נזכר כלל דיני חנוכה וכל ענין חנוכה כי אם Another answer given by Rav .במקומות אחדים בדרך רמז בעלמא Alexander Moshe Lapidos is that when Torah She-be’al Peh was allowed to be written, not everything was allowed to be written. Only later on, the Gemara was allowed to be written. Rabbenu Hakadosh only wrote down things that had sources in the Torah, or gezeros (decrees) to make sure one kept things in the Torah. Chanukah does not fall into those categories. Only later on, in the times of the Gemara, was it allowed to דבקושי התירו לכתוב תורה שבעל פה והיו פסקי [be recorded.[32 פסקי. מתחלה סתימת המשנה בימי רבנו הקדוש. ואחר זה בימי רבינא ורב אשי חתימת התלמוד, והשאר היו נוהגין במגלת סתרים עד שלאחר זה הותר לגמרי לפרסם בכתב כל מה שתלמיד ותיק מחדש. ורבנו הקדוש לא הרשה רק מה שהוא לפירוש לתורה שבעל פה ומה שיש לו סמך בכתוב, או מה שהוא לסייג, כמו הלל וברכות, ערובין, נטילת ידים, נר שבת ומגלה (מחיית עמלק). אבל חנוכה שאיננו לא פירוש ואין לו סמך בכתוב, ולא לסייג, לא היה נהוג רק במגלת סתרים בבריתות דר”ח ור”א… רק נרמזה במשנה ב”ק סוף פ”ו ואחריה הורשה לפרסם בכתב ובזה יבואר החביבות המיוחדת :Rav Shmuel Auerbach writes .בתלמוד שבנס חנוכה, והטעם שאינו מפורש במשנה. בהשתלשלות, כל שלב יסודו מהמצב הקודם, והמשנה שהיא השלב הראשון של תורה שבעל פה, יש לה שייכות לתורה שבכתב, כי היא ראשית החלק הגלוי של תושבע”פ. וחנוכה כל מהותה היא גילוי תושבע”פ בלי מפורש בתורה שבכתב´היינו מציאות שחסר גילו שכינה ונבואה, בזמן של חושך וחורבן, ולזה לא שייך בנס החנוכה כתיבה. ודוקא המציאות שנס חנוכה לא נכתבה במשנה היא הסימן לחביבות מיוחדת, והיינו שחלקי התורה הפחות כתובים הם עילאיים. ומצב של של נס שכולו בתורה שבעל פה, ולא בתורה שבכתב, הרי כל כולו בין הקב”ה לעמו ישראל, ולא מופיע בחלקי התורה שנקראים גם על Another .(ידי הגוים בשבעים לשון (אהל ,רחל חנוכה, עמ’ ל-לא ונתבאר בזה גם הטעם :answer given by Rav Shmuel Auerbach is שרבי לא פירוש דיני חנוכה במשנה. אמרו חז”ל עה”פ אילת השחר, שאסתר סוף הנסים, ופירושו, סוף הנסים הכתובים בכתבי הקודש. והמשנה אע”פ שהיא תחילת תורה שבעל פה, מכל מקום דיני המשנה הם דינים שיש להם שורשים בתורה שבכתב, וכל ענינו של חנוכה אינו שייך לתורה שבכתב, אלא הוא כל כולו תושבע”פ, שהתקוף של גילוי האור של תושבע”פ היא דוקא במצב של חושך והסתר פנים, שכבר נפסקה הנבואה, וזכו לכך דווקא מתוך ובגלל החושך, שהוצרכו לעמל ומסירות נפש כדי The Chasam .(לגלות את אור התורה (אהל ,רחל חנוכה, עמ’ קיח Sofer’s answer One of the most famous answers given to this question is by the Chasam Sofer, who is quoted by his grandson Rabbi Shlomo Sofer in the Chut Hameshulash as having said many times that the reason why the miracle of Chanukah is not in the Mishna is because Rabbeinu Hakadosh was a descendant of David Hamelech and the miracle of Chanukah was through the Chashmonaim who illegitimately took away the kingdom from the descendants of David. Since this was not to his liking, he omitted it from the Mishna, which was written withRuach מרגלא בפומי’ כי נס חנוכה לא נזכר כלל במשנה ואמר [Hakodesh.[33 טעמו כי רבנו הקדוש מסדר המשנה הי’ מזרע דוד המלך ונס חנוכה נעשה על ידי חשמונאים שתפסו המלוכה ולא היה מזרע דוד וזה הרע לרבנו הקדוש ובכתבו המשנה על פי רוח הקודש נשמט הנס מחיבורו (חוט ,This statement generated much controversy .(המשולש, דף נ ע”א and many went so far as to deny that the Chasam Sofer said such a thing.[34] The bulk of the issues relating to this answer of the Chasam Sofer were dealt with by Rav Moshe Zvi Neriah in an excellent article on the topic.[35] The most obvious objection to the Chasam Sofer is that the issue is not that Chanukah is never mentioned in the Mishna—in fact, it is a few times. The question is why there isn’t a complete mesechta devoted to it. Another problem raised by Rabbi Neriah is that, as we have seen above, the Behag writes that the elders of Shammai and Hillel, an ancestor of Rebbi, did record the story of Chanukah. Due to these and other issues, some have tried to explain the words of the Chasam Sofer differently.[36] This is not the first statement in the Chut Hameshulash that has been questioned. A daughter of the Chasam Sofer is reported to have said that the work is full of דע לך כי מה שכתוב הרב ר’ שלמה סופר, רבה של [exaggerations.[37 However .בערעגסאס בספרו חוט המשולש על אבא שלי זה מלא הגוזמות Rabbi Binyamin Shmuel Hamburger of Bnei Brak, an expert on the Chasam Sofer, writes that today we are able to defend all the statements of R. Shlomo Sofer from other sources, and that it is, indeed a reliable work.[38] This explanation of the Chasam Sofer seems to be based in part on the Ramban, who writes that although the Chashmonaim were great people and without them Klal Yisroel would have been destroyed, in the end they were doomed because they were not supposed to become kings, not זה היה עונש החשמונאים שמלכו בבית .being descendants of Yehudah שני, כי היו חסידי עליון, ואלמלא הם נשתכחו התורה והמצות מישראל, ואף על פי כן נענשו עונש גדול, כי ארבעת בני חשמונאי הזקן החסידים המולכים זה אחר זה עם כל גבורתם והצלחתם נפלו ביד אויביהם בחרב. והגיע העונש בסוף למה שאמרו רז”ל (ב”ב ג ב) כל מאן דאמר מבית חשמונאי קאתינא עבדא הוא, שנכרתו כלם בעון הזה. ואף על פי שהיה בזרע שמעון עונש מן הצדוקים, אבל כל זרע מתתיה חשמונאי הצדיק לא עברו אלא בעבור זה שמלכו ולא היו מזרע יהודה ומבית דוד, והסירו השבט והמחוקק לגמרי, והיה עונשם מדה כנגד מדה, שהמשיל הקדוש ברוך הוא עליהם את עבדיהם והם הכריתום: ואפשר גם כן שהיה עליהם חטא במלכותם מפני שהיו כהנים ונצטוו (במדבר יח ז) תשמרו את כהונתכם לכל דבר המזבח ולמבית לפרכת ועבדתם עבודת מתנה אתן את .(כהונתכם, ולא היה להם למלוך רק לעבוד את עבודת ה’ (בראשית מט,י It should be noted that not everyone agrees with the Ramban. [i][39] R. Kosman shows[40] that there was some playing around with this piece of the Chasam Sofer. In the first edition it מרגלא בפומי’ כי נס חנוכה לא נזכר כלל במשנה ואמר טעמו כי says רבנו הקדוש מסדר המשנה הי’ מזרע דוד המלך ונס חנוכה נעשה על ידי חשמונאים שתפסו המלוכה ולא היה מזרע דוד וזה הרע לרבנו הקדוש ועל But in the second edition a piece was כן נשמט הנס מחיבורו מרגלא בפומי’ כי נס חנוכה לא נזכר כלל במשנה ואמר added to say טעמו כי רבנו הקדוש מסדר המשנה הי’ מזרע דוד המלך ונס חנוכה נעשה על ידי חשמונאים שתפסו המלוכה ולא היה מזרע דוד וזה הרע לרבנו ובכתבוהקדוש המשנה על פי רוח הקודש נשמט הנס מחיבורו Interestingly enough, the Chasam Sofer in his chiddushim on Gittin explains the Chanukah omission based on the Rambam we mentioned earlier that says that since Chanukah was well-known Rebbe did not include it in the Mishna.[41] Whether or not the Chasam Sofer did say the explanation quoted in theChut Hameshulash, we have testimony from a reliable source that another gadol said it. The Chasdei Avos cites this explanation from the Chidushei Harim and he ties it to the Ramban דבשביל שהי’ לבם של בית הנשיא מרה על [mentioned above.[42 החשמונאים, שנטלו מהם המלוכה, והוא נגד התורה דלא יסור משבט יהודה, כמו שכתב ברמב”ן ויחי, לכן לא הזכיר רבנו הקדוש דיני Rabbi Aryeh Leib Feinstein also offers this .חנוכה במשנה explanation on his own and uses it to explain many of the differences between the versions of the miracle of Chanukah found in the Gemara and Megillas Taanis, and to explain who authored the different parts (Aramaic and Hebrew) of Megillas Taanis.[43] Rabbi Avraham Lipshitz says that, based on the answer of the Chasam Sofer, it is possible to answer another famous difficulty raised by many, which is why we don’t mention Chanukah in the beracha of Al Hamichya. Rabb Liphsitz says that in Al Hamichya we mention Zion, which is Ir Dovid. Since the Chashmonaim took away the kingdom at that time from the descendants of Dovid, we do not mention Chanukah in connection to Zion.[44] Another answer suggested by Rav Chanoch Ehrentreu is that the Mishna is composed mostly of various parts from much before Rabbenu Hakodesh, from the time of the Anshei Knesses Hagedolah and onwards, which is before the story of Chanukah took place. When Rebbe began to compose the Mishna there was no place for the halachos of Chanukah, so he did not put them in.[45]With this he answers another problem – we find that the early Tannaim dealt with Chanukah as we see in a beraisa in Shabbos from Ziknei Beis Shammai and Hillel so why isn’t there a Massechtah devoted to Chanukah. שגוף המשנה על חלקיה העיקריים הוא מעשה אנשי כנסת הגדולה… לאחר ימי אנשי כנסת הגדולה השלימו תנאים במקום שהיה טעון השלמה והוסיפו בשעה שנזקקו להוסיף, וחלקו על פירושה של משנה ראשונה וגם מסרו מחלוקות אלה לדורות. אך המשנה עצמה עתיקה מהלכות חנוכה. לכן ברור שתנאים שנו הלכות בענין חנוכה ונר חנוכה, אך כיון שכבר לא This answer is נמצא להם מקום בגוף המשנה נאספו אלה בברייתות based on the assumption that there were parts of the Mishna that existed earlier than Rebbe, and that he was just the editor. This topic of when the Mishna was exactly written has been dealt with from the time of the Geonim and onwards and is beyond the scope of this article.[46] However, I would like to make one point that also relates to this and the Chasam Sofer’s answer discussed above. What was Rabbenu Hakodesh’s role in writing the Mishna? Was he an editor that just collected previous material, or did he add anything of his own? Rav Ishtori Haparchi writes in his Kaftor Vaferach that Rebbe never brings something that he does not agree with in ורבנו הקודש לא יבא לעולם כנגד המשנה שהוא סדרה .the Mishna The Sefer Hakrisus disagrees. He (וחברה (כפתור ופרח, פרק חמישי says that Rebbe was mostly an editor. He gathered existing Mishnayos and, together with other Chachomim, chose what to מצינו בלשון משנה על רבי הא דידיה הא דרביה… נראה [include.[47 אף על פי שרבי סדר המשניות היו סדורות קודם לכן אלא שסתם הילכתא, וגם על פי עשרים בני תלמידי חכמים זה היה אומר בכה וזה היה אומר בכה והוא בחר את אשר ישר בעיניו אבל המשנה והמסכתא לא זזה ממקומה It would seem that the Chasom Sofer’s …וסדרה הוא כבראשונה answer could only work according to the Kaftor Vaferach and Rabbi Ehrentreu’s answer is only possible according to the Sefer Hakrisus. According to the Sefer Hakrisus, even had Rabbeinu Hakadosh not wanted to include the story of Chanukah for some reason, it was not only his say that was important. This explanation of the Chasam Sofer was the accepted explanation for many years among Jewish historians as to why the Mishna omits the story of Chanukah. For example Zechariah והנה גם מצות :[Frankel wrote in hisDarchei Ha-Mishnah[48 חנוכה באה לבד בדרך העברה … ולהדלקת נר חנוכה לא מצינו במשנה אפילו רמז (ועיין ב”ק פ”ו מ”ו). ואפשר שבזמן הבית לא חלקו כ”כ כבוד למצות זאת, כי גם מלכי בית חשמונאי אשר על ידי אבותיהם נעשתה התשועה לישראל, הכבידו עולם על העם ולא נחה דעת החכמים במלוכתם, ומצאו להם די בהזכרתם בתפילה חסדי השם עם עמו, ובמשך הימים כאשר נשכחו הצרות הראשונות תחת המלכים אלה נהגו בנר חנוכה, וגם אז נראה שלא לחובה כ”א למצוה, ונתנו המצוה ביד כל איש ואיש A while back, Gedaliah Alon .(כפי דעתו… (דרכי המשנה, עמ’ 321 wrote a classic article proving that this theory was not true at all. Subsequently, Shmuel Safrai backed this up. They both showed that there is positive mention of the Chashmonaim in many places in halachic literature. Therefore, this explanation does not suffice to explain the omission of Chanukah from the Mishna.[49] Hidden halachos The following answers relate to the concept found in the Gemarah numerous times, known as, chisura mechsara, something is missing, when trying to understand a specific statement in the Mishna. The Gemarah says that something is missing and really the Mishna should say this… The question asked by many is how did this happen. Many years ago I heard from one of my High school Rabbyim, Rabbi Lobenstein who heard from his Rebbi, Rav Hutner that this was done on purpose. The whole Heter to write down Torah She Bal Peh was a Horot Sho as Rabbenu Hakodesh saw that it was going to be forgotten. However he did not want all of it to be come accessible to all he wanted to retain a strong part of it to be dependent on Torah She Bal Peh on a mesorah from the past. Therefore he made that certain parts could only be understood based on a transmission from a previous generation. One of the ways he did that was to leave out certain sentences from the Mishna. I later found that Rav Hutner says this concept to explain why there is no special ומקבלת היא נקודה זו :Mishna devoted to the Halchos of Chanukah תוספת בהירות מתוך עיון בכללי סדור המשנה ובמה שהורונו רבותינו בביאורם. בתוך כללי סידור המשנה נמצא כאלה שאינם נראה כלל כמעשי סידור, כגון אין סדר למשנה, חסורי מיחסרא… וכדומה. והורונו רבותינו בזה כי גם לאחר שהותרה כתיבתה של תורה שבעל פה, ומשום עת לעשות הוכרחו לכתבה או לסדרה לכתיבה, מכל מקום השאירום בשיעור ידוע כדברים שבעל פה גם לאחר שנכתבו, בכדי שגם הכתב יהא נזקק לסיוע של הפה, וסוף סוף לא תעמוד הכתיבה במקומה של הקבלה מפה לאוזן. ודברים הללו הם יסוד גדול בסדר עריכתם של דברי תורה שבעל פה על הכתב… מאורע מועד החנוכה יהא מופקע מתורת כתב, שכן כל עצמו של חידוש מועד החנוכה אינו אלא בנקודה זו של מסירות נפש על עבודת יחוד ישראל בעמים… ופוק חזי דגם במשנה לא נשנו דיני נר חנוכה, ולא נזכר נר חנוכה כי אם אגב גררא דענינים אחרים, והיינו כמו שהורונ רבותינו דגם לאחר שנכתבה המשנה עדיין השאירו בה מקום לצורת תורה שבעל פה על ידי החיסורי מיחסרא וכדומה, ובנר חנוכה בא הוא הענין הזה לידי השמטה גמורה, מפני שאורו של נר חנוכה הוא הוא האור שניתגלה על ידי מסירת נפש על אורות מניעת כתיבתם של דברים שבעל פה. בכדי שעל ידי זה תסתלק יון מלהחשיך עיניהם של ישראל על ידי תרגום דברים שבעל פה, כדרך שהחשיכה עיניהם של ישראל בתרגומם A little different של.( דברים שבכתב (פחד ,יצחק עמ’ כח-כט explanation of the concept of chisura mechsara without tying into Chanukah can be found in the incredible work fromthe Chavos Yair called Mar Keshisha where he writes as follows: ובזה מצאנו טעם חכמי משנה שדברו דבריהם בקיצור נמרץ ובדרך זר ורחוק מתכלית הבנתו והמבוקש, וטעם שניהם להרגיל התלמידים בהתבוננות וחידוד, שיבינו דברים ששמעו אף כשהם עמוקים ועלומים, ומתוך כך יוסיפו מדעתם, ויבינו עוד דבר מתוך דבר… ובזה יישבנו גם כן מה שלפעמים דקדקנו בלשון התנא בסידור דבריו ובחיסור ויתור אות אחת… ולפעמים אמרינן חסורא מחסרא במשנה… והכל הוא להלהיב הלבבות ולחדדם ע”י שיעמיקו וידקדקו בלשון התנא, ולפעמים ליישב הדין :The Rashash says .(והמבוקש… (מר קשישא, עמ’ כח-כט; שם, עמ’ נו ונראה דלפי שהיתר כתיבת המשנה לא היה רק משום עת לעשות וגו’ לכן לא באו בה רק עקרי הדינים בלבד בלי ביאור הטעמים, וכן לא בארה במחלקות הנמצאים בה טענות כל אחד מהצדדים ופעמים לא בארה גם עיקר הדין בשלמותו… וכן חסורי מחסרא והכי קתני, כי לא באה רק שעל ידה יזכרו לגרוס הענינים בשלימותם כפי הקבלה בעל פה, ולזאת תמצא ג”כ רבות שלשון המשנה איננו סובל את הענין כפי ישוב הגמ’ בה רק בדרך רחוק ודחוק, הכי רבינו לא היה יכול לדבר צחות ולבחור לשון ערומים.. שפעמים לא ביאר את הענין בדרך רמז… ויתכן לומר דלכן Another .(קראו לאיזו מהם מגילת סתרים (נתיבות עולם,דף קי”א, ע”א answer to the mystery of the Chanukah omission is from Rabbi Gedaliah Nadel as I will explain this too has to do with the concept of chisura mechsara. There is a famous concept of various Rishonim and Achronim. Many times, the Gemara uses the phrase chisura mechsara, something is missing, when trying to understand a Mishna. Some Rishonim say that there is nothing actually missing in the Mishna. What appears to be missing is really there, but the naked eye cannot see it. That is what the Gemara means when it says something is missing and then adds the missing text. Just to list some sources for this ורבינו הקדוש שחבר המשנה ולמד :concept: Rabbenu Bechayh writes אותם ברבים וכתבוה הכל בימיו, כונתו היתה כדי שלא תשכח תורה מישראל שראה הרשעה מתפשטת בעולם וישראל מתפזרין בגלות, על כן הותר לו לעשות כן משום שנאמר: (תהלים קיט, קכו) “עת לעשות לה’ הפרו תורתך”, וכתב וחבר המשנה שהיא תורה שבעל פה, ועל כן קראה “משנה” לפי שהיא שניה לתורה שבכתב ורובה לשון הקדש צח כתורה שבכתב… ואחרי כן נתמעטה החכמה וקצרו הלבבות ועמדו רבינא ורב אשי וחברו התלמוד שהוא פירוש המשנה, כי לרוב חכמת רבינו הקדוש וחכמת בני דורו היה פירוש התורה אצלם מבורר ופשוט מתוך המשנה, ואצל דורות רבינא ורב אשי היה עמוק וסתום מאד, ומזה אמרו בתלמוד על המשנה: (ברכות יג ב) חסורי מחסראוהכי קתני, שאין הכוונה להיות המשנה חסרה כלל חלילה, אבל הכוונה שהיא חסרה אצלנו מפני חסרון שכלנו מפני שאין אנו מגיעים לעומק חכמת דור של חכמי המשנה… (רבנו ומ”ש לפעמים :Reb Avrhom Ben HaGra writes .(בחיי, כי תשא, לד:כז חסורי מחסרא והכי קתני, שמעתי מא”א הגאון החסיד המפורסם נר”ו שאין במשנת רבי שום חסרון בלישנא ומה שהוסיפו הוא מובן בזך הלשון של רבינו הקדוש ז”ל, אפס כדי להסביר לעיני המון הרואים בהשקפה ראשונה לפיהם צריך להסביר יותר, והמעיין בדבריו יראה שהוא כלול בדבריו ביתרון אות אחת, ואחוה לך אחד לדוגמא… (רב פעלים, עמ’ והיה :Reb Yisroel Shklover also writes about the Gra .(107 יודע כל חסורי מחסרא שבתלמוד בשיטותיו דלא חסרה כלל בסדר שסידר Rabbi Gedaliah Nadel .(רבינו הקודש המתני’ (פאת השלחן, הקדמה says that most of Hilchos Chanukah can be found in the Mishna. The Mishna in Bava Kamma (62b) says that if a camel was walking in the public domain with flax, and the flax caught fire from a fire that was in a shop and did damage, the owner of the camel has to pay the damages. However, if the storekeeper’s fire was out in the public domain, then the storekeeper has to pay damages. Reb Yehudah says that if the fire was from neiros of Chanukah, then the storekeeper is not obligated to pay. From here, says Rabbi Nadel, we can learn the basic halachos of Chanukah: the neiros have to be lit outside, over ten tefachim and when people are passing by. The halachos of Hallel and Krias Hatorah are found in other places in the Mishna. The rest of the halachos are side issues.[50] ולפי זה יש ליישב דענין נס חנוכה ומצות נרות וואדי היה מפורסם לחיוב ולא היה צריך להקדמה כלל, ואף דמ”מ היה צורך להכניס יסוד הדינים במשנה מ”מ לזה סגי לפרש הדברים בדרך רמז במשנה דב”ק. דאם נדקדק בדברי המשנה שם נמצא כל עיקר דין נר חנוכה דילפינן מינה דאיכא חיוב להניח הנר בחוץ ובתוך עשרה טפחים ושיהא בזמן שעוברים בשוק, ורק אנינים צדדים כמו מהדרין וכו’ לא חשש להזכיר. ודין דמדליקין מנר לנר וכו’ איכא למילף מדיני בזוי מצוה. ויתר הלכות חנוכה הוזכר אגב אורחא כל אחד במקומו, וכגון חיוב הלל גבי קרבן עצים (תענית פ”ד מ”ה). וחיוב קריאת התורה גבי דיני קרה”ת (מגילה פ”ג מ”ד ומ”ו), ודין אמירת על הנסים לא נזכר כמו שאר נוסחי תפלות שלא הוזכרו מפני שהיו ידועים ומוסרים (ליקוט מתוך שעורי ר’ I would like to suggest[51] that this answer .(גדלי’, עמ’ מ is similar to the famous concept of variousRishonim and Achronim [52] mentioned above, nothing actually missing in the Mishna. What appears to be missing is really there, but the naked eye cannot see it. Similarly here, Chanukah is in the Mishna, but it’s not clear to the regular person. As Rav Nadel shows, the basic laws of Chanukah are hidden in the Mishna in Bava Kamma. The Chanukas Habayis, first printed in 1641, is a special work devoted to the halachos of Chanukah. This work explains how all of the halachos of Chanukah are found in a piece of Masseches Soferim—in Haneiros Hallalu.[53] Masseches Soferim, although it was composed at a late date, is really based on an earlier work from the time of Chazal. In other words, it contains halachos which date back to early times.[54] I would like to suggest that perhaps this piece was much earlier—from the times before Rabbenu Hakodesh composed the Mishna. And because it had hidden in it all of the laws of Chanukah, this could be another reason why Chanukah was not included in the Mishna, as there existed a halacha that had in it hidden all of the laws of Chanukah—Haneiros Hallalu. A famous controversy This whole issue of the Chanukah omission was a small part of a famous debate. In 1891, Chaim Selig Slonimski wrote a short article inHazefirah (issue #278) questioning why there is no mention in Sefer Hashmonaim and Josephus of the miracle of the oil lasting eight days. Furthermore, he questioned why the Rambam omits the miracle of the oil when detailing the miracles of Chanukah. He contended that the answer is that a miracle did not actually occur, but the Kohanim created that impression to raise the spirits of the people. As can be expected, this article generated many responses in the various papers and journals of the time and even a few sefarim were written devoted to this topic. A little later, while defending his original article, Slonimski wrote that we do not find the halachos of Chanukah mentioned in the Mishna, only in the Gemara. Rabbi Ginsberg, in his work Emunas Chachimim, pointed out that the halachos are mentioned in Baba Kama.[55] Rabbi Lipshitz in his work Derech Emunah, written to deal with this whole issue, defended this omission based on Chanukah’s mention in Megillas Taanis, as mentioned above. Rabbi Y. Sapir also wrote such a defense.[56] Appendix one: Megilat Taanis and Chanukah Earlier I quoted some that some say that the reason why Rebbe did not have a whole masechta about Chanukah was because there was one already: Megillas Taanis! I would like to elaborate on what I wrote earlier and clarify a bit more on the work Megillas Taanis, especially its relationship to Chanukah. Megillas Taanis is our earliest written halachic text, dating from much before our Mishnayos. In the standard Megillas Taanis, there are two parts: one written in Aramaic, which is a list of various days which one should not fast or say hespedim on. This part is only four hundred and seventy words long. The other part was written in Hebrew and includes a lengthier description of each particular day. The longest entry in the latter part is about Chanukah. It contains reasons for the Yom Tov and some of the halachos. A few Achronim already used the MT for Chanukah to show that the famous Bais Yosef’s Kasha of why is Chanukah eight days has been asked by the author of the MT. [58] It would appear that the Bais Yosef did not have a copy of the MT.[59] Be that as it may when one compares the passages about Chanukah in the MT to the Bavli one will find some similarities and many differences. The question is which work influenced which, did the MT influence the bavli or vice ת”ר נר חנוכה מצוה כו’ עיקרן של :versa. The Netziv writes ברייתות אלו המה במגילת תעניות פ”ט, והוסיף שם ואם מתייראין מן The Chida .(הלצים מנחיה על פתח בית (מרומי שדה, שבת דף כא ע”ב מאי חנוכה… דלא על :writes that the Bavli was aware of the MT עצם חנוכה שואל, דהרי המשנה סמכה על מגילת תעניות (חדרי בטן, עמ’ There is an interesting little-known correspondence on .(צז this topic between the Aderes and R. Yaakov Kahana Shut( Toldos Yakov, Siman 29) about the topic of a Mesechet Chanukah and Megillat Tannis. Rav Kahana was bothered why the Bavli left out most of the MT from its discussion in regard to וצ”ע מ”ה השמיטו הבעל הש”ס דידן האי בבא ממג”ת הלא דבר .Chanukah הוא… וקצ”ע על בעל הש”ס ירושלמי שלא הביאו האי עובדא דחנוכה המוזכר במג”ת פ”ט המובא בשבת כ”א ב’ וגם פלוגתת ב”ש וב”ה בנרות ומה שתמה על :The Aderes responded to R. Kahana .לא מוזכר שם הש”ס למה לא הביאו האי בבא דמגילת תענית גם אנכי הערתי בזה ומצאתי תמי’ זו בהגהת הרצ”ה חיות ז”ל ובימי עולמו כתבתי מזה בס”ד ולא אדע אנה. ואשר התפלא מדוע לא נמצא הא דחנוכה בירושלמי באמת גם במשנה לא נמצא אולם בסוף פ”ו דב”ק שם נמצא וגם מעט בירושלמי בשלהי תרומות. ואנכי מתפלא מאד דגם מצות כתיבת ספר תורה לא נמצא R. Kahana wrote a lengthy response. He explained that …במשנה it does not bother him that the Mishana does not mention this story of Chanukah from MT as the Bavli does not mention any of the incidences in MT. He is more bothered by the omission of the Yerushalmi of this story as found in the MT, as the Yerushlmi does mention other incidences of MT.[59] As to writing a sefer Torah not being mentioned in the Mishna R. Kahana gives a lengthy list of all the Mitzvos that are not discussed in the Mishna (and the list is long). Rabbi Lifshitz העתקתי כל דברי המגלת תענית כי יש ללמוד ממנו הרבה, האחד :writes כי כל הברייתות המובאות בגמרא אינם ברייתות מאוחרות ודברי אגדה.. Rav .(רק כולם המה לקוחים מהמג”ת הקדומה הרבה… דרך אמונה, עמ’ 17 הברייתא של מאי חנוכה שמקורה במגלת תענית והובאה :Zevin writes We see from all these Achronim .(בבלי… (המועדים בהלכה, עמ’ קפז that it was obvious to them that the Bavli was written well after the MT. The question is when, was the MT written. Rav Yaakov Emden writes (in his introduction to his notes on Megillas Taanis) that it was completed at the end of the era of the Tannaim. The Chida writes it was written before the Mishna.[60] Earlier I mentioned that while Megillas Taanis dates from before our Mishnayos, it contains significant additions from a later time. Maharatz Chayes and Radal say that the Aramaic part was written very early, at the point when it was not permissible to write down Torah Sheba’al Peh. At a later point, when it was permitted, the Hebrew parts were added. Maharatz Chayes says that it was after the era of Rabbenu Hakodesh. But was it written before the Bavli or after? The Maharatz Chayes concludes that the Bavli did not have the same version of Chanukah as the MT as MT that part of MT was written later. TheMaharatz Chayes observes that whenever the Bavli quotes the MT and it uses the wordsDe- khesiv it is referring to the early part written in Aramaic when it says De-tanyah it is referring to the later part.[61] To answer this a bit of background is needed; MT as we have it was first printed in Mantua in 1514. Over the years various editions were printed some with Perushim on them. In 1895 Adolf Neubauer printed a version based on the manuscripts. In 1932 Hans Lichtenstein printed a better version based on the manuscripts.[62] S. Z. Leiman has already noted[63] that this work is to be used with great discretion. As late as 1990, Yakov Zussman noted in his classic article on Halacha and the Dea Sea Scrolls that a proper critical edition was still needed.[64] A little later a student of his, Vered Noam, began working on such a project and in 2003 a beautiful edition of this work was released by the Ben Tzvi publishing house.[65] Over the years Noam has written many articles about her finds unfortunately not all of these important articles are included in this final work printed in 2003.[66] Amongst the points discovered by Noam was that the scholion[67] part (as it was coined by Graetz) exists in two different manuscripts (besides for other fragments) and that each one of these versions are very different and include different things. At a later point these two independent works were combined into a hybrid version which is the basis of our printed text today. The hybrid version included both of the earlier versions and even added things not found in either version of the scholion. In her work, Noam deals with trying to identify when all this was done.[68] One of the key questions in her work is did the scholion have the Bavli or vica versa. She demonstrates that it is not a simple issue and each piece of MT has to be dealt with accordingly to compare the versions and the like. As far as Chanukah is concerned she concludes that most of the parts from the MT are from other sources but parts are from the Bavli but these parts from the bavli that are found in the scholion versions are from a later time. [69] Shamma Friedman argues on Noam’s conclusions in regard to Chanukah; he has many indications to show that as far as Chanukah is concerned the scholion was influenced by the Bavli.[70] One of indications for Friedman was that in one of the two additions To clarify this !כדאיתא בבמה מדליקין of the scholion it says מצות נר חנוכה :point, in one version of the scholion it says נר אחד לכל בית והמהדרין נר אחד לכל נפש והמהדרין מן המהדרין However this passage does not appear .וכו’ כדאיתא בבמה מדליקין at all in the other manuscript of the scholion but it does appear in the Hybrid version with changes. In the Hybrid מצות חנוכה נר איש וביתו והמהדרין :version it says as follows נר לכל נפש ונפש והמהדרין מן המהדרין בית שמאי אומרים יום ראשון מדליק שמנה מכאן ואילך פוחת והולך ובית הלל אומרים יום ראשון מדליק אחד מכאן ואילך מוסיף והולך. שני זקנים היו בצידן אחד עשה כדברי בית שמאי ואחד כדברי בית הלל זה נותן טעם לדבריו וזה נותן טעם לדבריו זה אומר כפרי החג וזה אומר מעלין בקדש ואין מורידין. מצות הדלקתה משתשקע החמה ועד שתכלה רגל מן השוק ומצוה להניחה על פתח ביתו מבחוץ ואם היה דר בעליה מניחה בחלון הסמוך לרשות הרבים. ואם מתירא מן הגויים מניחה על פתח ביתו מבפנים ובשעת הסכנה מניחה As an aside over here we can see the .על שלחנו ודיו differences between each version of the manuscripts of the scholion versions one has it in one line one does not have the passage at all and one has a very lengthy version of the are not the only כדאיתא במה מדליקין passage. Now these words factor for Friedman to reach his conclusions in regard to the sources of this passage of the scholion version of MT. He has many other points but just to list one more of them. Friedman has a whole discussion about the origins of the word הברייתא שם, מצות חנוכה… :Mehadrin.” Louis Ginzburg noted that“ והמהדרין וכו’ נראה שהיא בבלית שאין לשון מהדרין לשון חכמי המשנה Friedman .(שבארץ ישראל (פירושים ,וחידושים א, ברכות, עמ’ 279 has an article with various proofs to show that this is true.[71] If this is so the fact that MT uses the word Mehadrin would be another indicator that at least in this case the MT was influenced by the Bavli. According to all this it would be impossible to answer that the reason why Rabbenu Hakodesh did not write a Mascetah about Chanukah was because he was relying on MT. As discussed here this part of the MT was written long after the Mishna and possibly even after the Bavli! I would like to conclude this section with some words about the Oz Ve-hador edition of Megilat Taanis. In 2007, the Oz Vehador publishing house released a new edition of Megilat Taanis. A few years back I wrote on the Seforim Blog about some of their censorships in regard to this work. Today I would like to turn to some other issues with this particular edition. In the introduction of this work they explain that one of the benefits of this work is that they used manuscripts and on the side of each page they indicate various differences based on the manuscripts. They write that they only include the differences that are important. They then include a nice long list of all the pieces of manuscripts and Genizah fragments that they used for this work. Ten such items were consulted and used they even give abbreviations for each one of the items in the list. The problem is as follows all this is plagiarized straight from Vered Noam’s edition of the MT printed in 2003. They copied her list and order, word for word, without bothering to even try to cover up their tracks. The reason this is obvious is that Noam made up abbreviations for each of the works, as is common in all critical editions to make it easier when quoting them. Now for whatever reason she decided to choose these abbreviations, for each one of the works Oz Ve-Hador happened to pick the exact same abbreviation. For example, for one genizah fragment she labeled, Gimel Peh and for another one she labeled it Gimel Aleph. Oz Ve-Hador did the same. Now what is interesting is Noam uses all these pieces in her work, as a quick look at her apparatus will show. Oz Ve-Hador only substantially quotes two manuscripts throughout their whole work, the Oxford MS and the Parma MS. They never use any Genizah fragments so why do they even mention them with abbreviations in their introduction? If that is the case, why did they bother to even copy this whole list from her, if they did not even bother to look at any other of the manuscripts or quote them? Why in the world are the abbreviations needed in the first place? The only reason why she has abbreviations is to make the usage of her scientific apparatus user friendly, something whichOz Ve- Hador does not even attempt to do. This would indicate that the person who copied the list did not even have a clue to what it was that he was copying. One other point is that almost all the changes seem to be a minor correction or spelling mistake. When one compares this to the apparatus in Noam’s addition this is absurd. What in the world was their basis for making corrections in the work, only correcting these few things when there are many, many things to correct or at least point out to the reader? Now a careful examination of the MT from Oz Ve-Hador will leave one wondering what exactly they did as far as using manuscripts are concerned. In the Chanukah piece of MT which there are many differences and pieces in each version they were able to come up with three כדאיתא בבמה differences! For example the important words or that this whole long piece about Mehadrin etc. does מדלקין not appear in one version of MT at all, and as explained earlier both of these issues are important. This would indicate to me even more, the person or persons involved in this part of their edition had no real clue to what he was doing, he chose some differences from the manuscripts and that was it. I would even go so far as to say that they did not bother to look at any of the actual manuscripts but rather just used Noam’s work and took a few differences from the two key manuscripts and put them in their work. However I do not have the patience to prove that so it will just remain a strong hunch for now. In short we have yet again another work of Oz Ve-Hador which shows how good and accurate they are in dealing with manuscripts.[72] Another small point of interest to me was that the Oz Ve-Hador edition was careful to never call the Hebrew part of MT the “scholion,” as that was a word coined by Maskilim. One last small point of interest to me in about the Oz Ve-Hador was that they seem to have no problem with the Maharatz Chayes as they quote his piece on the MT word for word with proper attribution. It would seem they argue (as do I) with Rebbetzin Bruriah David who concluded that the Maharatz Chayes was a Maskil.

[1] Chanukah is mentioned a few times in Mishnayos but the issue here is why there isn’t a whole mesechta devoted to it. See Machanayim 34:81-86 [See Tiferes Yeruchem pp. 60, 414]. As an aside, in the Zohar there is also no mention of Chanukah. See Tiferes Zvi (3:397,465) and Rabbi Yaakov Chaim Sofer in Beis Aharon ve-Yisroel (18:2, p. 110) and his Menuchos Shelomo (11: 43). [2] For chassidus sources: see Bnei Yissaschar , Ohev Yisroel and Moadim le-Simcha p. 38. For machshava sources see: R. Teichtal, Mishnat Sachir, Moadim, pp. 411-417; Sifsei Chaim (2:131); Pachad Yitzchak (pp. 29-32); Alei Tamar (Megilah p. 87); Rav Munk, Shut Pas Sadecha, (introduction, p. 7). As to kabbalah, the Yad Neman writes (p. 2b) that when he met Rabbi Dovid Pardo, author of the classic work on Tosefta, Chasdei Dovid, he told him a reason based on kabbalah. As to why the Sugyah of Chanukah in the Bavli is in Messechtas Shabbas, see Rabbi Shmuel Auerbach, Ohel Rochel, p.82, 113; N. Amenach, Sidra 14 (1998), pp. 59-76. For general sources on this topic see Rav Moshe Tzvi Neriyah, Shana Be-shanah 1988, pp. 159-68. It was then included in his Tznif Melucha pp. 177- 182 and then later translated into English in the journal Jewish Thought, Spring 5753, 2:2, pp.23-35. Rabbi Yona Metzger brings most of this piece in his Mayim Halacha (siman 111). (Thanks to my friend Yisroel Tzvi Ickovitz for bringing this and the Shana Be-shanah piece to my attention.) Rav Freund in Moadim Lisimcha relied heavily on this article of Rabbi Neriyah as he drops a few hints in middle of his piece on this topic such as on (p. 34 n.74), but of course without mentioning Rav Moshe Neriyah name as he was a Zionist. The Hebrew Kulmos of Mishpacha magazine, issue 19 (2005), p. 22-23 has a small article on this topic from R. Rosenthal which was then included and updated in hisKemotzo Shalal Rav. He definitely did not use Rav Neriyah article as he has a very small amount of sources on the topic. This year in the latest Hebrew Kulmos, issue 107 (2012), R. Kosman revisited this topic. His article is a rewritten version of Rav Neriyah article on the topic. He also buries the source of Rav Neriyah in one of the last footnotes of his article and does not really add anything to the story as Rav Neriyah presents it. I will mention one nice new point which he adds to this topic. There are also three very important, excellent articles related to this topic from M. Benovitz, See:Tarbitz , 74 (2005), pp. 5-20; Zion, 68 (2003), pp. 5-40; Torah Lishma, 2007, pp. 39-78. I have not included much of the important information found in these articles related to this topic. See also Y. Yerushalmi, Zakor, pp. 24-26. [3] This piece is not found in the regular editions of the Maggid Mesharim but only in one manuscript printed in Tzefunot, 6 (1990), p. 86. He ומסכת מגילה גם כן נאמרה בסיני, כי הראה הקב”ה למשל דור :writes ודור… וענין חנוכה אף על פי שהראהו הקב”ה בסיני, לא ניתן ליסדה I would like to thank .בכלל המשנה, לפי שהיה אחר שנחתם חזון Professor Shnayer Z. Leiman for bringing this important source to my attention. On this work in general see myLikutei Eliezer, pp. 90-118. [4] Although it has been pointed out that many rishonim and even the Megillas Taanis deals with this issue, it’s still called the Bais Yosef’s kasha. [5] Rambam, Perush Hamishna, Menochos 4. See also Melchemes Hashem, (Margolis ed.) p. 82. Regarding the Rambam’s comments in general, see Rabbi Reuven Margolis inYesod Hamishna Vearichasa (pp. 22-23) who raises some issues with it. He shows that there are many sources that Jews were negligent in Tefilin so how can the Rambam say that there was no need to record the Halachos as they were well known. See myBein Kesseh Lassur, p. 230. For additional sources on this Rambam see. Y. Brill. Movo Ha-Mishna, pp. 110-112, 156; Z. Frankel, Darchei Ha-mishna, p. 321. [6] The earliest source who gives this answer is Rav Chaim Abraham Miridna, Yad Neman, Solonika, 1804, p. 2b. Subsequently, many others give this answer on their own, such as the Maharatz Chayes (Toras Haneviyim p. 105), Rav Yaakov Reifmann (Knesses Hagedolah (3:90)), Pirish ha-Eshel on Megillas Taanis (p. 58b), Beis Naftoli son (#28), Yad Yitchach (#295) Rav Hershovitz in Minhagei Yeshurun (p. 48) Dorot Harishonim (4:46a) [see also Rav Eliyahu Schlesinger in Moriah (25:123) and in his Ner Ish Ubeso pp. 338-339]. [7] Michtivei Chofetz Chaim, p. 27. [8] Kol Kisvei Maharatz Chayes, vol. 1, pp.105-106. [9] Rav Y. Shor, Mishnas Ya’akov Jerusalem 1990, pp. 33-34. [10] Rav U’Pealyim, Intro, 8a. He also brings this down in his introduction to his edition of Midrash Agadah Bereishis. See also Yeshurun 4:228. On this work see here and Yeshurun, 24:447; Yeshurun, 25: 679-680. [11] See Heiger in his introduction to Masechtos Ketanos p. 6; M. Lerner in The Literature of the Sages, volume I, pp. 400-403; and Rav Brody, The Geonim of Babylonia and the Shaping of Medieval Jewish Culture, 1998, p. 109. [12] Sharei Teshuvah, siman 143; Radal notes toMidrash Rabbah Emor (22:1). See Rav Nachman Greenspan, Pilpulah Shel Torah p. 60 and his Maleches Machsheves p. 6. See also the Radal’s comments in Kadmus Hazohar at the end of section two; Rav Dovid Hoffman, Mishna ha-Rishona, pp.12-14;Yesod Hamishna ve- Arechsa p. 29 (and nt. 15) and 17. [13] See his introduction to his work on Avos, Bais Avos. [14] The earliest source who says this is Rav Yosef Hayyim ben Siman,Edos Beyosef, Livorno, 1800 (2:15). The Chida quotes this explanation in the collection of derashos entitled Devarim Achadim (derush 32). See also his Chedrei Beten, p. 97. Rabbi Lipshitz in Derech Emunah p. 24 also provides this explanation. See also Aishel Avraham in his introduction to his work on Megillas Taanis. [15] Pirush ha-Eshel p. 58, see also his introduction to MT. The piece on pg 58 is not found in the new Oz Vehadar edition as the Pirish Haeshel was printed only partially see this post. See what I wrote in Yeshurun, 25:456. [16] Behag, 3:335. On this statement see V. Noam, Migilat Tannis, pp. 383-385. [17] Rabbi M. Grossburg, Megilat Tannis, p. 26. [18] Mahritz Chayes, vol. 1, pp. 153-54; Radal, Kadmus Hazohar, p. 269. [19] Haples 1:182. On the authorship of the MT and Tosfoes, see: Chesehk Shlomo, RH. 19a; Shut Reishis Bikurim, p. 94; Sharei Toras Bavel, p. 60. [20] For more on all this see the Appendix. Rav Neriyha (above, note two), tries to answer how this answer can work out with the assumption that it was written at two different times but what he says is incorrect. [21] This is a brief explanation of the topic of Migilat Tannis. Here is a list of some of the sources on the time period of the Megillas Taanis and the two versions (and the nature of the work in general): see Y. Tabori, Moadei Yisroel Betekufos Hamishna Vehatalmud, pp. 307-22; Yesod Hamishna ve- Arechsa, p. 12 & n.26, p. 20 ; Rav N. D. Rabanowitz,Beno Shnos Dor Vedor, pp. 28-46; See also the nice introduction to the Oz Vehadar edition of Megillas Taanis; M. Bar Ilan, Sinai 98 (1986) pp. 114-37. See also the important points in Yechusei Tanaim ve-Amorim (Maimon edition) pp. 398-399. [22] Torah Shleimah 3:156a. See also his Shut Rashban, Siman 258 .On the statement of the Be-hag see V. Noam, Megilat Taanis, pp. 383-385. [23] On these works See Radal in his introduction to Pirkei De Reb Eliezer; Iyunim B’divrei Chazal Ubileshonam, p. 116; Binu Shnos Dor Vedor, pp. 121-150; N. Fried in Minhaghei Yisroel, vol. 5, pp. 102-20; Areshet vol.4 p. 166; Y. Tabori, Moadei Yisroel Betekufos Hamishna Vehatalmud, p. 390; Moadim le-Simcha p. 253-265, and Hasmonai U-Banav p. 2, On this Megilah in general see R. M. Strashun, Mivchar Kesavim p. 144; R. M. Leiter, Mamlechet Kohanim pp. 40-159. [24]The manuscript was printed in Areshet, 3:182-191. See also I. Davidson in Parody in Jewish Literature pg 39. One of the things we see from this parody is the widespread custom of playing cards on Chanukah. Another similar parody which also has in it a Masechta Chanukah was printed in New York in 1909 and was called Talmud Yankee. [25] Edos Beyosef (2:15) based on Yerushalmi, Succah 5:1. See Y. Tabori, Moadei Yisroel be- Tekufat ha-Mishna ve-HaTalmud, p. 373 [26] Rabbi Y. Buczvah in Shut Beis Halachmei (#4) does not like this answer as than other yom tovim also should not be included. Regarding this Yerushalmi, see: Yesod Hamishna ve-Arechsa p.22 nt.5; Ali Tamar, Sukkah p. 152; Tzit Eliezer, 19:26. [27] Eglei Tal pp.17-18. [28] Yesod Hamishna ve-Arechsa pp. 21-22. See also Rav Freidman in Machanayim 16:12 and Rav M. Cohen in Machanayim 37:43. [29] Nodeh Besharyim, 110b. [30] Toras Hagon Rebbi Alexander Moshe, p. 256. [31] Halechot Shlomo (p. 306 n.42). See also Shalmei Moed p. 254. [32]This answer is brought by R. Yakov Reiffmann inKnesses Hagedolah (3:90) where he brings that R. Alexander Moshe Lapidos wrote this answer to him. This is historically interesting as it shows that there was a connection between the two even though he was a known maskil (for more on R. Yakov Reiffmann ties with Litvish Gedoilm see here ). As an aside this piece of R. Alexander Moshe Lapidos is omitted from the otherwise excellent, recently printed, collection of all of R. Alexander Moshe Lapidos Torah in Torat Hagoan Reb Alexander Moshe. A similar idea to this is found in Tifres Zvi (3:465). [33] Chut Hameshulsesh, p. 50a. Others bring this answer without saying a source see Shut Beis Naftoli (# 28); Machanyim issue # 17:11. [34] See Mishmar Halevi (Chagigah #46-47); Or Torah (1991) p. 156); Zikhronos u-Mesoros Al ha-Chasam Sofer pp. 13-14; Otzros ha-Sofer (10:96); Hasmonai u-Banov pp. 111-112. [35] Shana Be-shanah 1988 (pp. 159-68, See above note 2. It seems that Rav Neriah was not aware that it was in the Chut ha-Meshulash as he cites only to the Ta’emi ha-Minhagaim (p. 365). [36] Shut MaHaryitz (#78). [37] Me-pehem, p. 171. [38] Rav B. Hamburger in his introduction to hisZikhronos u- Mesoros Al ha-Chasam Sofer, pp. 13-14. [39] Bereshis 49:10. For some sources see Yad Neman (p. 2b); Tzitz Eliezer (19:26), Rav Yaakov Kamenetsky, Emes le-Yaakov pp. 239-40, 271-73 and Chasmonai U-Banav pp.106-113. [40] Kulmos, above note two, p. 13. [41] Chasam Sofer, Chidushim on Gittin,78a. Some want (some of the sources at the end of note two above such as R. Neriyah and R. Kosman) to use this as proof that the Chasam Sofer could not have have said what theChut ha-Meshulash brings in his name. I think this is a weak issue as the Chasam Sofer could have given different answers at different times. [42] Chasdei Avos (#17). In general on this passage from the Chasdei Avos see Benu Shneos Dor Vedor pg 52-71. [43] Kuntres Aleph Hamagen, pp. 69-72. [44] Yalkut Avrhom, p. 203. For more sources on this topic see Rabbi Reven Margolis, Hagadah Shel Pessach, Ber Miriam, 2002, p. 109; Rabbi Ovadia Yosef, Shut Yabbia Omer, 3:36. [45] Iyunim B’divrei Chazal Ubileshonam, p. 117. [46] This explanation and this whole issue in general gets involved with the famous discussion of what was Rebbe’s role in the writing of the Mishna. Just to list a few basic sources on the topic see: Rav Dovid Hoffman,Mishnah ha- Rishonah; Y.N. Epstein, Movo le-Nussach ha-Mishnah, 2: 692-706; C. Elback, Movo le-Mishna, pp. 99-116; Rav Margolis, Yesod Hamishna ve-Arechsa pp.59-64. Y. Sussman, Mechkarei Talmud, 3, pp. 209-384. See also the excellent doctorate of C. Gafni, The Emergence of Critical Scholarship on Rabbinic Literature in the Nineteenth-Century:Social and Ideological Contexts, pp. 41-111. See also this nice new book on this topic. A. Yoreb, Ha-Shelsheles Mish Lesefer. [47] Sefer Hakriesus, Part 5, Section 2:58. I just mention this issue here briefly for more on this see the important comments of Rabbi Yeruchem Fischel Perlow to theKaftor Vaferach, pp. 141b- 114b. [48] On Using FrankeI’s work see myLikutei Eliezer, p. 35. I hope to return to the issue of using Frankel’s work shortly but for now see the interesting letter כבר כתבתי לו כי אני מחוסר ספרים :of the Sredei Eish who writes לגמרי… וכן ספרים במקצוע חכמת ישראל, כמו… דרכי המשנה… (יד יוסף, ,G. Alon,Mechkarim Betoldos Yisroel [עמ’ תסב-תסג). [49 1:15-25; S. Safrai, Machanyim issue # 37 p. 51-58; M. Cohen, Machanyim issue #37 p. 43; Ben Zion Luria, in his introduction to his edition of Megillas Taanis p.20-32. See also Y. Tabori, Moedei Yisroel Betekufos Hamishna Vehatalmud, pp.372-373; Y. Gafni,Yemei Beis Chashmonyim, pp. 261-276. [50] Likut Me-toch Shiurei Reb Gedaliah, 2003, p. 40. On this work see Y. Shilat, Betoraso Shel Rav Gedaliah, p. 9. [51] Rabbi Nadel connects his answer to the Rambam mentioned in the beginning. The connection to the topic of chisura mechsara is mine. [52] Z. Frankel, Darchei Ha-mishna, p.295; Y.N. Epstein, Movo le- Nussach ha-Mishnah,1, pp. 595-598. [53] Chanukhas Habayis, p.21. [54] See Radal, Kadmus Hazohar, beginning of section three; Rav Dovid Zvi Rothstein, Sefer Torah Menukod, in Kovetz Ohel Sarah Leah, 1999, pp.773 and onwards; Higger, introduction to Masechtos Ketanos; M. Lerner in The Literature of the Sages, volume one pp. 396-403; Rav Brody, The Geonim of Babylonia and the Shaping of Medieval Jewish Culture, 1998, p. 112. [55] pp. 4a-4b. [56] Nes Pach Shel Shemen, p. 30.This controversy generated much discussion. See the article in Sinai, 100:202-09. Amongst those who responded about this was Rav Alexander Moshe Lapidos printed inTorat Hagoan Reb Alexander Moshe p. 456-58. A very sharp response against Slonimski was written by Rav Yaakov Reiffmann, printed from manuscript by M. Hershkowitz in Or Hamizrach (18:93-101). Hershkowitz wrote a bibliography on the topic which, unfortunately the editors Or Hamizrach did not include and, to the best of my knowledge, was never printed. I am currently working on an article collecting all the material on this controversy. A response (from manuscript) on the topic from the Aderes was printed where he wrote to hisfriend R. הנני למלא Reiffmann after seeing Reifmann’s responsehere רצונו להגיד לו דעתי על מאמרו הערות בעניני חנוכה, כי כל דבריו כנים ונאמנו בדבר הזה הייתי בר מזלי’, וחלילה לעלות על הדעת כי הרמב”ם לא האמין כלל בגוף נס השמן, וראיותיו צודקות ונאמנות, והחושב על הכהנים מחשבת פיגול במומו פוסל, כפי שידענו מן התורה נביאים וכתובים היו הכהנים העומדים בראש כל ישראל ומהם יצאה תורה לכל העם כולו והם הם שהיו המורים והשופטיםובכל זאת עליהם היו ממונים סנהדרין גדולה ששפטה אותם, ושטות ואולת גדולה לחשוב מה שכתב פלוני על אודות החשמונאים, והיא רק שיחה קלה להשיב לקלי דעת המאמינים לכל דבר ולא לתורתינו ועבדי’ חכמי התלמוד הנאמנים לד’ ולתורתו, אין ספק שמידי מעתיקי הרמב”ם בא אשמת החסרון בדבריו, ואין לדון מאומה מדברי ידידי מעכ”ת שי’ שהר”מ ז”ל האמין בלבבו הטהורה פשוטו כמשמעו, ככל המון בית ישראל, כפשטות ד’ הגמ’, וחלילה לנו להשליך דברי אלקים חיים מבעלי התלמוד אשר מימיהם אנו שותים אחרי גיוינו ולנוע אחרי ספרים חיצונים אשר לא בא זכרם בתלמוד הקדוש ומוקדש קודש הקדשים, ואין המאמר שוה להפסיד העת בבקורתו ילך לו בעל המאמר בשיטתו ואנחנו בשם אלקינו ועבדיו נזכיר See for [אנחנו ובנינו אותו נעבוד כל ימינו לטוב לנו סלה” [57 example; Eliyhu Rabah, 670:9; Chida, Devarim Achadim (derush 32); Yemei Dovid, p. 142, 148; Zera Yakov, Shabbas, p.13a; Mahratz Chayis. Shabbas 21b; Shut Minchas Baruch, siman 109; Rav Tavyumi, Tal Oros, 1, p. 93-94. See also R. Illoy, Melchemet Elokyim, p. 203, 215. Rav Kook,Mitzvos Rayehu, (siman 670) [58] As far as a Bar Ilan search shows. See also the article in Ha-mayan 34 (1994), pp. 21-42, about the library of the Beis Yosef. [59] For more on the Yerushalmi’s omission see L. Ginsburg (Ginzei Schechter 2:476) who writes: וראוי להעיר שבתלמוד ארץ ישראל כמעט לא נזכרו דיני חנוכה כלל לא בדברי התנאים ולא בדברי האמוראים ורק בבבל שעובדי האש גזרו על See …מצוה זו וככל מצוה שמסרו ישראל נפשם עליה נתחזקה מאד בידיהם also G. Alon, Mechkarim Betoldos Yisroel, 1:15-2; M. Benovitz, Torah Lishma, 2007, pp. 39-78. [60] Shem Hagedolim, entry for MT. [61] Mahratz Chajes, vol. 1, pp. 153-54; Radal, Kadmus Hazohar, p. 269. The question is who said all this first Krochmal in his Moreh Nevuchei Hazeman (p. 254) brings this idea and adds the Maharatz Chayes proof from the way the Gemara quotes MT and on this last part he attributes it to the Maharatz Chayes. This indicates according to S. Friedman in Zion, 71 (2006), p. 33, in a Yakov Zussman like footnote, that Krochmal was the first to say this actual idea. On the close relationship between them see M. Hershkowitz, Rabbi Zvi Hirsch Chayes, pp. 233-275. However see, A. Rosenthal,Mechkarei Talmud, 2. p. 484. See also R. Elyaqim Milzahagi,Sefer Raviah, pp. 10b-11a, who said this idea himself around the same time. [62] H. Lichtenstein, ‘Die Fastenrolle – Eine Untersuchung zur jüdisch-hellenistischen Geschichte’, HUCA, VIII-IX (1931-2), pp. 317-351 [63] S.Z. Leiman, Scroll of Fasts: The Ninth of Tebeth, Jewish Quarterly Review 74:2 (October 1983), p. 174. [64] Tarbitz, 59 (1990), p. 43, Note 139. [65] For reviews on this work see here. M. Bar Ilan, Moed, 16 (2006), pp. 114-130. [66] See V. Noam in The Literature of the Sages volume two, pp. 339-62. It is worth noting that in 2008 another important page of a manuscript of MT was discovered from the 1300’s See Y. Rosenthal, Tarbiz, 77 (2008), pp. 357-410; V. Noam, Ibid, pp. 411-424. [67] On the name scholion, see S. Friedman, Zion 71 (2006), pp. 31-33. [68] The Scholion to the Megilat Ta‘anit: Towards an Understanding of Its Stemma, Tarbiz 62 (1992-93): 55-99 (in Hebrew); “Two Testimonies to the Route of Transmission of Megillat Ta‘anit and the Source of the Hybrid Version of the Scholion”, Tarbiz 65 (1995-96): 389-416 (in Hebrew). [69] The Miracle of the Cruse of Oil: A Source for Clarifying the Attitude of the Sages to the Hasmoneans? Zion 67 (2001-2): 381-400 (in Hebrew); The Miracle of the Cruse of Oil”, HUCA 73 (2003): 191-226. See also her MT, pp. 266-276. [70] Zion 71 (2006), pp. 5-40. [71] Leshonenu, 67 (2005), pp. 153-160. See also the articles of M. Benovitz cited above in note two. See the latest Hebrew Kulmos, issue 107 (2012), p. 36 for a small article on this topic which was obviously not aware of Friedman’s article on the topic. For more on this word see; Sefer Ha-Tishbi, Erech Hadar; ibid, Raglei Mevaser; Rav Teichtal, Shut Mishna Sachir, Siman 198 [= Mishna Sachir, Moadyim 1, p. 513]; M.B. Lerner, in Torah Lishma, 2007, p. 184. [72] For another recent example of such work by Oz Ve- Hador see the latest Yeshurun 25 (2011), pp. 724-735 in regard to the supposed work of the Malbim on Koheles which was printed from manuscript. [For an updated version of this piece one can e-mail me at [email protected]]

The Meaning of the Name “Maccabee”

The Meaning of the Name “Maccabee”[1] Mitchell FirstIn a previous post at the Seforim blog, Dan Rabinowitz dealt with the topic of the origin of the name “Maccabee,” and made many interesting points,[2] although he did not adequately address the issues. My intention in this essay is to offer a more is not found in מכבי/מקבי thorough discussion. The name classical Tannaitic or Amoraic literature.[3] But this is not surprising. The name was originally an additional name for Judah only and there are no references to Judah in classical Tannaitic or Amoraic literature.[4] The earliest sources that include the name in some form are works preserved by the Church: I Maccabees and II Maccabees. (These are not the original titles of these works.) I Maccabees was originally written in Hebrew,[5] but what has survived is only a Greek translation from the Hebrew (and ancient translations made from this Greek translation). II Maccabees, an entirely different work, was written in Greek. In the early Church, I and II Maccabees were considered part of the Bible.[6] I Maccabees (2:2-5) tells us that Mattathias (=Matityahu) had five sons, and that each had another name. For Joudas (=Judah), the name was Makkabaios (Gr: Μακκαβαîος.)[7] The additional names were probably given to the sons to help distinguish them from others with the same name.[8] In I Maccabees, Makkabaios is used for Judah six times. In II Maccabees, it is used for him twenty-three times.[9] To determine whether the earliest spelling of the name in Hebrew one must guess from the doublekappa in ,ק or a כ was with a Makkabaios what the original Hebrew letter (or letters) would have been. Fortunately, this is not hard. Although there are exceptions, there is a general pattern in the Greek ,(withchi (χ כ translation of the Bible of transliterating is transliterated with one ק with kappa (k).[10] Usually ק and kappa, but sometimes twokappas are used.[11] A with twokappas is very rare.[12] These כ transliteration of same patterns hold true in I and II Maccabees. For example, if we focus on I Maccabees,[13] and look at the Greek transliteration of names, places, and months whose Hebrew spelling is known from the Bible, we find: -transliterated transliterated- ;כסלו and ,כלב, זכריה, מכמש, כתים :with χ are and ,יעקב, עקרבים, תקוע ,אשקלון, קדש :with one kappa are and עקרון[transliterated with twokappas are: [14- ;קרנים transliterated with כ At no time in I Maccabees is .הקוץ[15] kappa.[16] Thus, the spelling of Makkabaios with two kappas [in the original Hebrew or Aramaic,[17 ק points strongly to a מקקב Moreover, an original .קק and does not mandate assuming a would be extremely unlikely. Hebrew and Aramaic words do not ordinarily have 4 letter roots. If we make the alternative assumption that the initial mem was not a part of the root, in either קקב this does not help either. There is no root Hebrew or Aramaic.[18] The double kappa just confirms our [כ. [and not19 ,ק supposition that the original reading was Based on this spelling, it seems reasonable to agree with the oft-proposed suggestion that the name is related to the Hebrew which mean hammer.[20] As to ,מקבא and מקבת and Aramaic words why Judah was called by this name, one view is that the name alludes to his physical strength or military prowess.[21] But is not a military weapon; it is a worker’s מקבת/מקבא a tool.[22] Therefore, it has been suggested alternatively that the name reflects that Judah’s head or body in some way had the physical appearance of a hammer.[23] Interestingly, the Mishnah at Bekhorot 7:1 lists one of the categories of and the term is explained in the ,המקבן disqualifed priests as Naming [מקבא. [Talmud as meaning one whose head resembles a24 men according to physical characteristics was common in the ancient world.[25] Is it possible that Makkabaios and the other four names were Greek names?[26] The additional names for the other sons were: Gaddi (Γαδδι), Thassi (Θασσι), Auaran (Αυαραν) and Apphous (Απφους).[27] Perhaps it would have been beneficial for a Jew even as early as the age of Mattathias to have had an additional name in the Greek language. It is seen from the reference to Antigonus at M. Avot 1:3 that a “traditional” Jew circa 200 BCE could have borne a Greek name. (In the period after Judah, we know of many prominent Jews who had both a Hebrew/Aramaic name and a Greek name.[28] For example, Simon’s son John was also called Hyrcanus,[29] John’s son Judah was also called Aristobulus,[30] John’s son Yannai was also called Alexander,[31] and Yannai’s wife Shelomtziyon was also called Alexandra.[32]) But the letters μ,κ,β or μ,κ,κ,β, with any combination of vowels in between them, do not seem to correspond to any known word in ancient Greek.[33] Moreover, the two kappas also suggest that the name is not Greek. Two consecutive kappas are not typical in a Greek word.[34] Finally, there are no non-Jewish figures from this period or any earlier period with a name like Makkabaios. This is strong evidence that the name is not a Greek one. However, our task of determining the original spelling and meaning of the additional name of Judah is not that simple. Two further issues present themselves. First, assuming that Makkabaios is a Greek representation of a Hebrew or Aramaic name, we still do not know whether the authors of I and II Maccabees knew how Judah himself, who died in approximately 160 BCE, spelled his name. I Maccabees, which covers the period 175-134 BCE, was probably composed after the death of John Hyrcanus in 104 BCE, or at least when his reign was well advanced. This is seen from the last two sentences of the work.[35] After describing the murder of Simon and the attempted murder of Simon’s son John, the book closes with the following statement (16:23-24): As for the remainder of the history of John, his wars and his valorous deeds and his wall building and his other accomplishments, all these are recorded in the chronicle of his high priesthood, from the time he succeeded his father as high priest. [36] With regard to II Maccabees, we are told by the unknown author that it is an abridgement of an earlier work by someone named Jason of Cyrene. Cyrene is in Libya, but presumably Jason spent some time in Judea.[37] He is otherwise unknown.[38] The prevailing view is that Jason was a contemporary of Judah.[39] For example, the abridgement ends with a description of a military victory by Judah in 161 BCE, suggesting that the original work ended around this time as well. But it can be argued that the abridger ended his work before Jason did.[40] For example, the abridger writes that Jason narrated the history of Judah “and his brothers” (II Macc. 2:19). Based on this, an argument can be made that Jason’s work continued long after 161 BCE. It has also been argued that Jason wrote his work as a response to I Maccabees.[41] Even if we adopt the prevailing view that Jason was a contemporary of Judah, this does not necessarily mean that Jason knew how Judah himself spelled his name.[42] The second issue that presents itself arises from the fact that the name is written “Machabaeus” in the Latin translation of I and II Maccabees composed by the church father Jerome (c. 400 CE).[43] There is a question whether this spelling reflects Jerome’s own spelling choice, which was perhaps made after he consulted the original Hebrew of I Maccabees,[44] or whether this was the conventional spelling of the name in the earlier Latin translations made from the Greek, which Jerome simply let stand. If this spelling was Jerome’s own and he made it after consulting with the original Hebrew of I Maccabees,[45] this would strongly suggest that the Hebrew text that he had In his translation of .כ before him spelled the name with a the Bible into Latin, Jerome almost uniformly used “ch” to Alternatively, if the “ch” spelling [כ.[represent 46 originated in the Latin translations before Jerome, or if it originated with Jerome, but not in consultation with the original Hebrew of I Maccabees, it would seem to be based on a Greek text which spelled the name with chi. This too would seem to reflect an original Hebrew spelling of the name with a Thus, although we saw earlier that the doublekappa in the .כ in the original ק Greek translation of I Maccabees suggests a Hebrew, the evidence from Jerome’s Latin translation points in the opposite direction. Perhaps already in an early stage there were two different Hebrew spellings of the name.[47] If the meaning that ,כ the Hebrew name was spelled with a suggests itself is “the extinguisher.”[48] * * * * * * The that is prevalent in Jewish כ spelling of Maccabee with a spelling. It is כ sources today is not evidence of an original only the consequence of the spelling choice made by the author of Yosippon in the 10th century.[49] Yosippon is a historical work of anonymous authorship that was based in large part on a Latin translation of the works of Josephus.[50] Among the other sources that the author of Yosippon had before him was a Latin translation of I and II Maccabees. In the Latin translation of I and II Maccabees that was before him, Judah’s additional name was spelled “Machabaeus.” Based on this, the He .כ author of Yosippon decided to spell the name with a influenced the כ This spelling with a [מכביי.[spelled it 51 Rishonim thereafter. There never was a group by the name Maccabees in ancient times. How did the references to this non-existent group ever arise and how did the books get their titles? II Maccabees focuses in large part on Judah. Jonathan Goldstein, the author of I and II Maccabees in the Anchor Bible series, explains further:[52] Clement of Alexandria and Origen, the earliest of the Church Fathers to mention the books by name, call themTa Makkabaïka, “Maccabaean Histories,” from which title persons who spoke loosely probably turned to call all the heroes in the stories “Maccabees.”[53] The first datable occurrence of such use of “Maccabees” for the heroes is in Tertullian…ca. 195 C.E.[54] seems to be the מקבי Finally, it must be pointed out that original reading in the work now commonly referred to as Megillat Antiochus.[55] But this work is replete with errors: with Yochanan (John), while מקבי It associates the name- according to I and II Maccabees, this name is only associated with Judah. -It describes Yochanan as killing the general Nikanor in a private encounter in the area of the Temple. According to I and II Maccabees, Nikanor was killed by Judah and his forces in a battle that took place outside of Jerusalem. -It describes Judah as being killed before the Temple was retaken and describes Mattathias as stepping in to fight with the other brothers. According to I Maccabees, Mattathias died before the Temple was retaken and Judah led the brothers in battle. II Maccabees does not even mention Mattathias and describes Judah as leading the brothers in battle. -In its dating of the story of Chanukah, it erroneously assumes that the retaking of the Temple coincided with the beginning of Hasmonean rule in Palestine. In actuality, over two decades separated these events. Because of these and other errors, it is hard to treat this work as a reliable historical source on any issue.[56] * * * * * * Some of the other, more remote, possibilities for the origin of the one) מחבה hope),[57] from) מקוה name are: a derivation from one who causes grief).[59] The) מכאב who hides),[58] or from name has also been interpreted in various ways as an acrostic.[60] Finally, on a lighter note, the suggestions of Franz Delitzsch and Filosseno Luzzatto (son of Samuel David Luzzatto) deserves mention. Delitzsch suggests that the name is a contraction of the exclamation mah ke-avi! (=who is comparable to my father!)[61] Luzzatto observes that there is a Greek term βιαιο-μάχας (biaio-machas) which means “fighting violently.”[62] If one places these words in reverse order, one gets something close to Judah’s additional name![63] Conclusion The two kappas in the name in the Greek translation of I Maccabees suggest that the original Hebrew from which That the .ק this translation was made spelled the name with a ק is extremely unlikely. A כ two kappas stem from an original spelling would suggest that the name is related to the Hebrew and that the name was ,מקבא and מקבת and Aramaic words assigned to Judah based on either his physical strength/military prowess or based on his physical appearance. But it is also possible that neither the authors of I or II Maccabees nor Jason knew how Judah spelled his own name. Also, the fact that the name is spelled with a “ch” in Jerome’s Latin translation suggests that there may also have been a Hebrew version of I Maccabees that spelled the name with a [כ.[64

[1] I would like to thank Sam Borodach for reviewing the draft. All translations from I and II Maccabees are from the editions of Jonathan A. Goldstein (Anchor Bible, vols. 41 and 41A, 1976 and 1983). All citations to theEncyclopaedia Judaica (EJ) are to the original edition. [2] Dan Rabinowitz, “The Name Machabee,” the Seforim blog (21 December 2008), available here. [3] I am not considering Megillat Antiochus (“MA”) to be within “classical rabbinic literature.” I will discuss this unusual work at the end. [4] Aside from the references in MA, the earliest reference to Judah in rabbinic literature is a reference in an 8th century work, Mishnat R. Eliezer (also known as Midrash Agur). This reference seems to be based on MA. This will be discussed below. Judah is also referred to in two of the three midrashim on Chanukkah published by Adolf Jellinek in the mid-19th century, and republished by Judah David Eisenstein in his Otzar Midrashim (1915). See Eisenstein, pp. 190 and 192. These midrashim are estimated to date to the 10th century. See EJ 11:1511. [5] There are many factors that point to the fact that the Greek is only a translation. See, e.g.,EJ 11:657, and Goldstein, I Maccabees, p. 14. For example, many Hebrew idioms are used. The church father Jerome (fourth cent.) clearly implies that the Greek version of I Maccabees is only a translation. He writes: “I have found the First Book of Maccabees in Hebrew; the Second is a Greek book as can also be proved from considerations of style alone.” Goldstein,I Maccabees, p. 16. An earlier church father Origen (third cent.) mentions an extra-biblical book used by the Jews which is a “Maccabean History which bears the title ‘sarbêthsabanaiel.’ ” Since this title is in Hebrew or Aramaic, this suggests that the book he is referring to, almost certainly I Maccabees, was composed in Hebrew or Aramaic. As to the meaning of this title, see Goldstein,I Maccabees, pp. 16-21 and J. Taanit 4:5 (68d). Jerome is the last individual to refer to the original Hebrew of I Maccabees. Neither I or II Maccabees is referred to or alluded to in either Talmud. [6] For example, they were included in codices of the Septuagint. Judah and his brothers were seen as heroes by the early church. Centuries later, the Protestant church denied the sanctity of I and II Maccabees and of all the other books known today as the Apocrypha. But the Apocrypha are still part of the canon of the Roman Catholic and Greek Orthodox churches. The Biblical canon may have been considered closed by Jewry even before I Maccabees was composed. See Sid Z. Leiman, The Canonization of Hebrew Scripture (1976), pp. 29-30 and 131-32. Even if the canon was still open (see, e.g., Lawrence H. Schiffman, Reclaiming the Dead Sea Scrolls, 1994, pp. 162-169, and M. Yadayim 3:5 and M. Eduyyot 5:3), a strong argument can be made that I Maccabees was never a candidate for canonization since it did not claim to be a book composed before the period of prophecy ended. II Maccabees would never have been a candidate for canonization since it was composed in Greek. [7] As is evident from the names Mattathias, Joudas, and Makkabaios, Greek often adds an “s” at the end of foreign became “Moses” in the Septuagint, and משה names. That is why why there is an “s” at the end of the name “Jesus.” [8] Goldstein, I Maccabees, p. 230. [9] In II Maccabees, the name is usually used alone, without the name Judah. In I Maccabees, the name is used alone one time. Although the name is spelled with two kappas each time, the “s” at the end is not there each time. In Greek, the ending of the name varies depending on the how the name is being used in the sentence. [10] The First Book of Maccabees, tr. by Sidney Tedesche, intro. and comm. by Solomon Zeitlin (1950), p. 250, and Samuel Ives Curtiss, Jr., The Name Machabee (1876), p. 8. at Ezra בקי See, e.g., the transliteration of the name [11] .(many times) עקרון and the transliteration of the city ,7:4 [12] Curtiss, who seems to have gone through the Septuagint .at I Ch תכן :very carefully, can cite only one such case 4:32. See Curtiss, p. 9. But even here, there is another reading in which the transliteration is with two chis. [13] In II Maccabees, the occurrence of names and places whose Hebrew spelling is known from the Bible is very limited. (Unlike I Maccabees, II Maccabees does not provide many geographic details.) In II Maccabees, transliterated with chi יעקב, חזקיה Transliterated with kappa are .מרדכי and כסלו are .קרנים and [14] I Macc. 10:89. [15] I Macc. 8:17: “Judah chose Eupolemus son of John of the clan of Hakkoz…” I am making the reasonable assumption that mentioned at I הקוץ Hakkoz is the same as the priestly clan Chr. 24:10. (Although the reading of the majority of Septuagint manuscripts is Ακκως, there is another reading: ακχως.) [16] This is true in II Maccabees as well. Admittedly, in most of the instances I have listed, the authors of I and II Maccabees were not deciding on their own how to transliterate these names and places, but were following already established conventions. [17] The name could be an Aramaic one, even assuming that I Maccabees was composed in Hebrew. [18] Semitic languages (other than Akkadian) do not have roots with identical consonants in the first two positions. Eduard Yechezkel Kutscher, A History of the Hebrew Language (1984, 2d ed.), p. 7. [19] The Syriac translation of I Maccabees also spells the The Syriac translation of the Bible was .ק name with a generally based on the Greek translation, but it has been argued that sometimes the translators consulted the original Hebrew and that perhaps the Hebrew original was consulted here. See Felix Perles, “The Name ΜΑΚΚΑΒΑΙΟΣ,”JQR 17 (1926-27), pp. 404-405. [20] See, e.g., Emil Schürer, The History of the Jewish People in the Age of Jesus Christ, revised and edited by Geza Vermes, Fergus Millar, and Matthew Black, vol. 1 (1973), p. 158, Zeitlin, pp. 250-52, Nosson Dovid Rabinowich, Binu Shenot Dor va-Dor (1985), pp. 184-87, and Ernest Klein, A Comprehensive Etymological Dictionary of the Hebrew Language for Readers of English (1987), p. 377. For references to earlier scholars who argued for this approach, see Curtiss, pp. 18-20 and Ralph Marcus, “The Name ΜΑΚΚΑΒΑΙΟΣ” in The Joshua Starr Memorial is found in the Tanakh at Judges מקבת .Volume (1953), p. 62 4:21. (See also Is. 51:1.) It is also found in Tanakh in the at I Kings 6:7, Jer. 10:4, and Is. 44.12. It is ,מקבות plural since it is a ,נקב usually viewed as deriving from the root tool which is used to penetrate. [21] There are various ways of understanding the metaphor. Some reasonable suggestions are: 1) he was as strong as a hammer, 2) he dashed the enemy into pieces, and 3) he penetrated the enemies’ forces. As many scholars have noted, another historical figure with such an additional name was Charles Martel, ruler of the Franks in the 8th century. Martel is French for “hammer.” He was given this additional name following his victory over the invading Muslim army at Tours in 732 CE. This victory halted northward Islamic expansion in Western Europe. Judah is described by the name Makkabaois before he battled the forces of Antiochus IV. But this is not a difficulty. According to I Macc. 2:66, he was “a mighty warrior from his youth.” used by מקבת See M. Kelim 29:5 and 29:7, referring to a [22] stonecutters. See also M. Parah 3:11 and Tosefta Shab. 13:17 (ed. Lieberman). Marcus (p. 63, n. 3) notes that at Ber. 28b, when one of the Sages is called a “strong hammer” (patish ha- .that is used ,מקבת and not ,פטיש chazak), it is the word [23] See, e.g., Schurer, vol. 1, p. 158 and Zeitlin, pp. 250-252. Exactly how to understand this is open to interpretation. Was it the shape of his skull that looked like a hammer? something about his face? something about his neck? something about his body? something about the relationship of these objects to one another? For some possible understandings, see Rashi to Bekh. 43b, and the commentaries to M. Bekhorot 7:1 of Rambam and Tiferet Yisrael. It has also been suggested that the reference to a hammer alludes to Judah’s having an occupation as a blacksmith. It has also been means “nostril” in Syriac and that perhaps מקבא observed that Judah possessed uncommon nostrils. Perles, p. 405. Bezalel Bar-Kochva, Judas Maccabaeus (1989), p. 147, attempts to support the view that the name refers to some flaw in Judah’s physical appearance by noting that I and II Maccabees nowhere laud Judah’s physical stature or beauty. [24] Bekh. 43b. Although the printed edition of the Talmudic ,(here (just like the word in the Mishnah למקבן passage reads This would seem to be the correct .למקבא Rashi’s text read reading . [25] See Zeitlin, The Rise and Fall of the Judaean State (1962), vol. 1, p. 96 for some examples. Josephus tells us (Life, para. 3) that one of his ancestors (a contemporary of John Hyrcanus) was called Simon Psellus= Simon, the stammerer. [26] This suggestion is made at EJ 12:808. [27] These are the additional names for John, Simon, Eleazar, and Jonathan, respectively. Of the four names above, Gaddi is the easiest to relate to a known Hebrew or Aramaic word. It ”.fortune“ ,גד can be related to the Hebrew and Aramaic word See, e.g., Gen. 30:11. For some attempts to give meaning in Hebrew or Aramaic to the other names, see Goldstein,I Maccabees, p. 231, Rabinowich, p. 186, and Ralph Marcus, Josephus (Loeb Classical Library), vol. VII, pp. 138-39. [28] For an extensive discussion, see Tal Ilan, “The Greek Names of the Hasmoneans,” JQR 78 (1987), pp. 1-20. [29] Josephus, Antiquities, XIII, para. 228. [30] Josephus, Antiquities, XX, para. 240. [31] Josephus, Antiquities, XIII, para. 320. [32] Ibid. Perhaps she was given this name after her marriage to Alexander. The Hebrew name of Yannai’s wife was transmitted in rabbinic sources in various forms. See Schurer, vol. 1, p. 229, n. 2 and Ilan, p. 7, n. 28. That the original Hebrew form has now been shown by two Dead Sea texts: 4Q331 שלמציון was and 4Q332. See Discoveries in the Judaean Desert XXXVI (2000), pp. 277 and 283. [33] I make this statement based on my examination of the following work: An Intermediate Greek-English Lexicon, founded upon the seventh edition of Liddell and Scott’s Greek-English Lexicon (1889). In contrast, many Greek words related to fighting begin with “μαχ.” Also, the Greek word for knife or dagger begins with these letters. (This is mentioned by Rashi citing Midrash Tanchuma.) Even though ,מכרתיהם ,at Gen. 49:5 the letters μ,κ,β or μ,κ,κ,β do not seem to correspond to any known word in ancient Greek, we do find Azariah de Rossi (16th cent.), in his Meor Einayim, Imrei Binah, chap. 21, adopting the suggestion of a 16th century monk that the name is a Greek one and that the meaning is the equivalent of the Italian “paladino” (=hero, champion). Also, R. David Ganz (16th מכבאי cent.), Tzemach David, p. 69 (ed. Breuer), writes that in the Greek language is a gibor and ish milchamah. Of course, it is possible that the names of Judah and of some of the other brothers were Greek and what is recorded in I Maccabees are only shortened forms of names that originally combined two Greek words. Also, if the additional names originated as affectionate nicknames, whether in Greek, or in Hebrew/Aramaic, such names are often substantially altered forms of the original proper name. (In English, note Dick for Richard, Jack for John, and Billy for William.) It has been speculated that “Chashmonai” was the additional name of Mattathias. See Goldstein,I Maccabees, pp. 18-19. (“Chashmonai” seems to have been an alternative way of referring to Mattathias. See, e.g., M. Midot 1:6. But this does not necessarily imply that it was his additional name.) “Chashmonai” sounds like a Hebrew or Aramaic name. See Josh. 15:27, Num. 33:29-30, and Psalms 68:32. (We might expect Josephus to know the origin of the term “Chashmonai,” since he was from this family. But the various statements in Josephus are not consistent. See Goldstein, I Maccabees, p. 19, n. 34.) [34] Curtiss, pp. 8-9, theorizes that the original Greek spelling was with only one kappa. He writes that letters which are single in earlier Greek manuscripts often end up being doubled in later ones. Curtiss, p. 9, n. 1. [35] It has been suggested that the last three chapters of I Maccabees were added later, because Josephus never uses them. But the failure of Josephus to use these chapters can be explained in other ways. See, e.g, Marcus,Josephus (Loeb Classical Library), vol. VII, pp. 334-335. [36] Goldstein, I Maccabees, p. 62. There is another comment which perhaps suggests that the book was composed long after the events described. I Macc. 13:30 reads: “This tomb, which [Simon] erected in Modeϊn, still exists today.” The positive attitude towards the Roman Empire in the book strongly suggests that the book was composed before 63 BCE. See, e.g., I Macc. 8:1: “Judas had heard about the Romans: that they were a great power who welcomed all who wished to join them and established ties of friendship with all who approached them.” [37] Most likely, he is called Jason “of Cyrene,” i.e., from Cyrene, because he flourished elsewhere (e.g., Judea or Egypt) after having been raised in Cyrene. But Victor Tcherikover, Hellenistic Civilization and the Jews (1959), p. 387, raises another possibility: Jason was a native of Palestine who left after the death of his hero Judah, and found a new homeland in the Jewish community of Cyrene. [38] It has been suggested that he is to be identified with Jason son of Eleazar who is mentioned in I Macc. 8:17 as having been sent by Judah on a mission to Rome. But this identification is only conjecture. .p. 19, n ,(ב (See Daniel Schwartz,Sefer Makabim 2004 [39] 23. Schwartz agrees with this position. He argues that it is evident from II Maccabees that Jason composed his work before the establishment of the temple of Chonyo in Egypt. This temple was established in 145 BCE at the latest. [40] The abridger does not state that he ended his work before Jason did. But if the abridger had followed Jason to the end, the abridger would have ended with something like: “Since Jason ended his work at this point, my work, too, is done.” Goldstein, I Maccabees, p. 5. Instead the abridger ends: “Such was the outcome of the affair of Nicanor. From that time on, the city has been held by the Hebrews. Therefore, I myself shall bring my account to a stop at this very point…” [41] Goldstein, I Maccabees, pp. 62-89 and II Maccabees, pp. 82-83. If this theory would be correct, we cannot view the similar spelling, Makkabaios, as an independent confirmation of this spelling, since perhaps the later work merely adopted the spelling of the former. It has also been theorized that I Maccabees was a response to or a rewriting of Jason’s work. [42] I am willing to assume that the abridger followed the spelling used by Jason. (It is not known for certain that Jason composed his work in Greek, but this seems very likely. The abridgement begins with an introduction, and the abridger did not say anything here about changing the language of Jason’s work.) [43] Curtiss, p. 7. [44] Throughout his Latin translation of the Bible, Jerome seems to have consulted the Hebrew and corrected earlier erroneous transliterations found in the Greek translation. Curtiss, pp. 6 and 31. Jerome was more advanced in Hebrew than of any of the other church fathers. [45] It is only speculation that Jerome consulted the original Hebrew of I Maccabees here. Even though Jerome refers to this work (see above, n. 5), he may not have had access to it and may not have remembered all of its spellings at the time he composed his Latin translation of I Maccabees. It sounds like he was referring to a work that was rare and not easily accessible. ”with “c” or “cc ק Curtiss, p. 7. Jerome transliterated [46] 188 times. There were only two occasions when Jerome with “ch”. (Curtiss attempts to explain what ק transliterated led Jerome to make exceptions in these instances. See pp. 7 and 32). [47] Curtiss (pp. 8-9) tries to get around this scenario by postulating that the original Greek text only had one kappa, and that it was only later that the kappa was doubled. An .could have been transliterated with one kappa כ original [48] See, e.g., Curtiss, pp. 25-29. [49] David Flusser, Sefer Yosippon, vol. 1, p. 79, note to line 56. [50] EJ 10:297. The author of Yosippon could not read Greek. [51] Flusser, vol. 1, pp. 79 and 80. (Flusser writes that this is the reading in the better manuscripts of Yosippon.) This spelling is also found in another work from around this time, a Hebrew translation and adaptation of I Maccabees. This work was perhaps authored by the author of Yosippon. See Flusser, Sefer Yosippon, vol. 2, p. 132. Much later in his work, in a different context, the author of Yosippon calls the group .Flusser, vol. 1, p. 342 .המקווים [52] Goldstein, I Maccabees, pp. 3-4. [53] A similar development seems to have occurred with the One can easily interpret all the references to .חשמונאי name in Tannaitic and Amoraic literature as references to חשמונאי Mattathias alone. (The only exception being the reference at Meg. 11a, but there are variant readings here.) It is only begin to חשמונאים after the Talmudic period that references to appear. See, e.g., Midrash Eser Galuyot, and Midrash Shocher writes ,חשמונאי Tov, chaps. 5 and 93. Jastrow, in his entry that the plural form is found in some editions of BK 82b. But I suspect that the plural form is not the original reading here. [54] Goldstein, I Maccabees, p. 4, n. 1, also suggests a possible earlier occurrence. But the Yemenite .מכבי Some manuscripts ofMA read [55] manuscripts of MA, which reflect ancient traditions, read If we look at the three oldest manuscripts ofMA (Turin .מקבי 111, Huntington 399, and Paris 20, all of which date from around 1300 and none of which are Yemenite manuscripts), two ,See Menachem Tzvi Kadari .מקוי and one reads מקבי read “Megillat Antiochus ha-Aramit,” Bar Ilan 1 (1963), p. 93, and Curtiss, pp. 37-41. (There are also a few manuscripts of MA in which the word is omitted.) In the manuscripts of MA, the term תקיפין קטלא is usually followed by words like מקבי/מכבי (=killer of strong men), perhaps implying that that the author of MA viewed this as its definition. [56] I would not have phrased it in this manner, but the EJ entry “Scroll of Antiochus” (14:1046-47) includes the following statement: “[T]he author was totally ignorant of the historical circumstances at the time of the Maccabees and made no use of any reliable sources on the period.” The first source to mention MA is the Halakhot Gedolot (mid-9th cent., who calls it Megillat Beit Chashmonai) but it is possible that the work was composed as early as the 1st century CE. That it was composed in the Talmudic period or the post-Talmudic period is also possible. The work was probably composed in Palestine, even though it may have been edited in Babylonia. It was originally composed in Aramaic; the widely known Hebrew version (included, for example, in the Siddur Avodat Yisrael, the Siddur Otzar ha-Tefillot, and the Birnbaum Siddur) is only a later translation. For references to sources which refer to MA and to practices of reading it on Chanukkah, see Natan Fried, Al Minhag Kriyat Megillat Antiochus be-Chanukkah, in Daniel Sperber, Minhagey Yisrael, vol. 5, pp. 102-113, and Rabinowich, pp. 138-146. Even though the first source to mention MA is the Halakhot Gedolot (and the import of his statement is unclear), a statement in Mishnat R. Eliezer, an 8th century work, seems to be based on MA. The statement (p. 103, ed. Enelow) refers to four sons of Chashmonai after Judah, the eldest, was killed. These details match the scenario depicted in MA. One of the midrashim on Chanukkah first published by Jellinek (see above, n. 4) is clearly based on MA but the midrashim published by Jellinek are estimated to date to the 10th century. See EJ 11:1511. (The midrash that is based on MA is the one that Eisenstein refers to as Maaseh (.ב‘ Chanukkah Nusach [57] Marcus, pp. 64-65. His suggestion is that Judah was thought of as living proof that God was Israel’s hope. Marcus makes the interesting argument that if the name was derived .the Greek form could have been Μακκβάν ,מקבן from the Hebrew There would have been no reason for the Greek form to have changed the ending, since names can end with “an” in Greek. The additional name of Eleazar was Auaran (Αυαραν). The problem with Marcus’ suggestion is that the Greek letter beta But Marcus finds some examples of .ב usually corresponds to beta being used to transliterate vav. Marcus did not realize it, but he was preceded in his attempted solution by Yosippon. There is one place where the author of Yosippon calls the .See Flusser, vol. 1, p. 342 .המקווים group [58] See Curtiss, p. 13 andJewish Encyclopedia, “The Maccabees.” Mattathias and his sons had fled and hid in the mountains during the period of persecution by Antiochus IV. But Judah seems to have had this name even before the persecution by Antiochus IV. [59] See Curtiss, p. 13 and Ezek. 28:24. [60] See Curtiss, pp. 14-17. [61] Curtiss, p. 23. [62] See, e.g., An Intermediate Greek-English Lexicon, p. 150. [63] Curtiss, p. 14. [64] I cannot end this study without mentioning that the word “macabre” perhaps has its origin in the name “Maccabee.” See, e.g., Klein, A Comprehensive Etymological Dictionary of the .מקברי ,Hebrew Language for Readers of English, p. 377