My Hanukkah

The following post is in relation to this. About the miracle of the oil, see R’ Dr. David Berger’s arguments here R’ Josh Waxman’s arguments here, and Happy’s post here. The standard alternative is a conspiracy theory- H.

It’s that time of year again when retailers dream of ‘kah-ching,’ oil producers plan shortages, Yeshivos organize their off Shabbos, party planners fill their schedules, and the pretentious unveil their Chanukah fantasies. They pat their colored-shirt-covered bellies in satisfaction as they once again disprove Chazal, Klal Yisrael, Halachic precedent, and communal history with the swipe of a chewed pencil and the flourish of a keyboard.

Yes, the Chanukah story couldn’t have happened as we know it, because if you believe that, you may as well pronounce a ‘saf’ without your tongue, and leave the letter q in the keyboard’s dustbin. How will we survive? What is next? Will the cocktail olive not be accepted as the minimum measurement of Matzah? (See, I didn’t go to college, but I can alliterate sometimes. What a genius I am!) Are we going to have to actually understand Hilchos Nidah as the Rishonim did?

Although we see this patently specious brain flatulence throughout the year, and my mind conjures up regular responses, now I spent some time actually debunking in writing one of these overweening epistles, for no other reason than my edification and entertainment (see? More alliteration!)

A self-declared Academic talmudician has publicized his discursive exhalations, notable for their distinct lack of intellectual oxygen, albeit dressed in historical references and high-class language, announcing how he thinks the Chanukkah holiday came about, and why we all got it wrong. What a surprise!

Let us analyze his pearls of gas, his edifices of fantasy, the pinnacle of his post-Shabbos chamber sessions, and show the dearth of actual analysis (again!) and authentic scholarship.

The first claim is sourced in Maccabees and Josephus, who discuss the Chanukkah victory against the Greeks, yet don’t mention the miracle of the oil. Josephus calls the festival one of lights, but has no explanation for us as to why this was its name.

Presto! No more Chanukkah miracle! It has been extinguished by this particularly innovative blow of gas from the fingers of the blogger, and eight days have been reduced to one. Moreover, said Dreikup would like to insinuate that the existence of a Menorah in the second Beis Hamikdash was not even a given (even as the holy grail of sources – Maccabees – mentions it). After all, it wasn’t mentioned on the back of the cereal box – source of the education these people display. Chazal didn’t know what they were talking about when they understood וכן תעשו to mean לדורות. Did Chazal merit academic degrees? Of course not! What did they know?

“Ok, but how is lack of evidence to be considered evidence?”

“Go back to beismedrash you Yeshva guy.”

“Isn’t it possible that at the time of the Beis Hamikdash, the rededication of the Mizbeach was considered more significant? When their lives revolved around the avodah in the Beis Hamikdash, presumably they felt the pain of the years of defilement more acutely and focused more on the victorious rededication over the miracle of lights. Perhaps that explains Josephus and Maccabees’ ignoring the miracle.”

“How dare you? That is mass academicide! Who gave you the right to demand intellectual consistency in our argument? Get him out of here!”

And the claim continues. Chazal ‘made up’ the story of the miracle of the oil some years later. Let’s get this logic clear – Two authors, one anonymously, don’t mention the miracle of the oil. Ergo, it didn’t take place. If Chazal say it did take place, they must have made it up.

Chazal don’t claim to have made it up. They say that they knew this by oral tradition, from the year following the victory. But the rules the world of pretentiousness have put in place preclude oral tradition from being considered. Even at a time when the entire Torah was based on oral traditions, people worked immensely hard to ensure they were accurate. Josephus and Anon are writing their version of history – Chazal are transcribing a tradition that they risked their lives to defend and protect. Yet their story is not even another option, dismissed in a cloud of self-congratulatory circular logic.

Then, our broccoli-filled stomach attached to typing fingers continues into the minhagim of lighting Chanukah lights. Of course, Chazal give us three levels of fulfillment of this Mitzvah; for regular folks, those who seek to beautify the Mitzvah, and those who seek to further beautify the Mitzvah.

Now, Tosfos explains the third option as replacing the second one. When the number of lamps increases according to the day of Chanukah, the Mitzvah is beautified in a way that it would not be if more lamps were kindled according to the number of people in the house. He does not mention the prevailing custom, as that was not the purpose of his statement. Yet our interlocutor is of no doubt that he is ‘just arguing for the most common practice of the time’. This isn’t his explanation of the Gemara, his understanding of the conceptual underpinnings of the laws, this is merely ex-post-facto revisionism. Seems the author knows as much about the Halachic process as he does about history.

Then we arrive at the Rambam’s opinion. The Rambam is quite clear that the owner of the house should be lighting lamps corresponding to both the number of people in his home and the night of Chanukkah. If three people live in the home, the owner of the home will light nine lamps on the third night of Chanukkah. However, he does concede that in Spain that was not the custom.

Our Ashkenazic custom, being as it is a custom, not a law, was only codified, like many other Ashkenazic customs, by the Maharil. Yet, the esteemed authors seem to think that this proves that nobody did so prior to that period. Of course, Maharil was one of the early codifiers of customs, and others simply did not put common practices into writing. But as we have seen, lack of proof is considered proof in the world of ignorance. Yes, some quote a different custom, for various conflicting reasons. Those who know a little about the Halachic and Minhagic process know that the Maharil was the one who forms the basis of many of our customs, even in the face of the chaos that preceded the dissemination of his opinion.

Now, there is a significant omission that glares at the slightly knowledgeable reader. The Ashkenazic custom is not like the Rambam at all. The Rambam had the owner of the house kindling all of the lamps. A Yeshiva bochur with a black hat and grubby white shirt knows that this is the subject of a Brisker Rav based on the Beis Halevi regarding bris milah. The prevailing custom is that each household member lights his own. This is rather significant, as the clod’s logic did not allow him to understand how the current custom is an improvement over the previous one. He is unaware of the words of Rabbi Akiva (or Aqiba, if you too have constipation) Eger who explained that the household members refuse to have their obligation discharged by the homeowner, increasing the beauty of the Mitzvah by self-performance. His conceptual understanding did not wander past the ‘more lights = nicer Mitzvah’ school of thought.

And his grand finale is that ‘Everyone knows that the “menorah” was instituted by the Hasmoneans to commemorate the miracle of the oil in the Menorah.’ In fact, nobody knows that at all. They know that lighting lamps was instituted by them, but the actual menorah, its shape, and size were never claimed to be a product of their takana. Not only does the genius invent history, but he also manages to invent current beliefs, too.