The Shifting Miracle of Chanukka?

Update: I've reanalyzed the topic in light of some data about the composition date of the Hebrew gloss in Megillat Taanit. For the old post, see below.

One's analysis can only be as good as the data that goes into it. I previously analyzed and remixed DovBear's post on Chanukka on the basis of the assumption that the Hebrew gloss on Megillat Taanit dated to the same time as the Aramaic "Mishna" of Megillat Taanit. After reconsidering this dating in the previous post, we now reconsider the issue. Once again we can channel Rabbi Dr. David Berger, who I should note did not make this mistake in his analysis (which should have tipped me off.)

Indeed, of all the references DovBear mentioned as being in the interim 600 years from the incident of Chanukka to the redaction of Talmud, none of them turn out to be in the interim, but rather post-Talmudic. So let us reanalyze the situation with this in mind. Borrowing liberally from my previous post:

The Shifting Miracle of Chanukka?

DovBear recently posted about the changing nature of the miracle of Chanukka, in which it started as military victory and eventually became only the miracle of the cruse of oil. Then he speculated on the reason this occurred.

This is not necessarily so.

Firstly, what does it mean to say that there is no attestation of the miracle of the cruse of oil? This means that in I Maccabees, there is no mention of this miracle. However, what DovBear neglects to mention, but which Rabbi Dr. David Berger does mention (see here) was that there is evidence that there were a number of miracle stories circulating then (found in II Maccabees), none of which are cited by the author of I Maccabees. This is a historiographical point - I Maccabees does not see fit to include miracles. Thus, this is an attempt to argue from absence of evidence, but absence of evidence is not evidence of absence, and in this case, it makes sense that there is an absence of evidence in this book.

Yet II Maccabees does not mention the miracle of the cruse of oil either. Again, this is arguing from absence of evidence, which is difficult given that II Maccabees is an abridgment of five books which we no longer have, and II Maccabees contains much more amazing miracles (e.g. appearance of angels).

Thus, the miracle of the cruse of oil might actually have been a fairly old one, dating even to the time of the Maccabees. Yet there is also the military victory aspect, as well as several other miracles. Saying there was one miracle does not contradict a claim that there was another miracle.

The first attestation we have for this miracle of the cruse of oil is indeed in the Talmud:

מאי חנוכה, דתנו רבנן, בכ"ה בכסליו יומי דחנוכה תמניא אינון, דלא למספד בהון ודלא להתענות בהון (מגילת תענית, משנה כ"ג). שנכנסו יוונים להיכל, טימאו כל השמנים שבהיכל וכשגברה מלכות בית חשמונאי ונצחום,בדקו ולא מצאו אלא פך אחד של שמן, שהיה מונח בחותמו של כהן גדול, ולא היה בו אלא להדליק יום אחד.נעשה בו נס, והדליקו ממנו שמונה ימים. לשנה אחרת קבעום ועשאום ימים טובים בהלל והודאה". (גמרא שבת כא

While we might parse it (and indeed, many appear to do so), "What is Chanukka? The Sages learnt...," as I discussed in the previous post, it may well be that Tno Rabbanan refers only to the Aramaic "Mishna" of Megillat Taanit, and the answer may well be non-Tannaitic.

Of course, that something is first recorded in the Talmud does not necessarily mean that the genesis of the story is just then. It could have been transmitted Orally, or this could be a citation from a no-longer extant source.

For what I think is a good symbolic explanation of the significance of the miracle, see my post on parshablog here.

The next source we consider is the early Geonic midrash from 8th century, Pesikta Rabbati. Citing again from DovBear's post:

"[At Hanukah] we commemorate the dedication of the Temple by the Hasmoneans who fought and defeated the Hellenists, and we kindle lights -- just as when [we] finished the Tabernacle in the Wilderness . . . ." (Pesikta Rabbati, ch. 6)

"Why do we kindle lights on Hanukah? Because when the sons of the Hasmoneans, the High Priest, defeated the Hellenists, they entered the Temple and found there eight iron spears. They stuck candles on them and lit them." (Pesikta Rabbati ch. 2)

Thus, we see that the military miracle, and the eight iron spears, and the Chanukkat haBayit. The Chanukkat haBayit reason is that given in both I Maccabees and II Maccabees. (The reason of Succot, found in II Maccabees, will be the subject of another post.)

Thus, even with mention of a miracle in the gemara, the Geonim felt free to mention other reasons. Multiple reasons are not mutually exclusive.

Indeed, we then see Megillat Taanit. The Hebrew gloss is apparently post-Talmudic, though exactly when I am not sure. Let us say it is a bit later than Pesikta Rabbati. I don't have enough info at the moment, but it does not really seem to matter to the analysis. We find all three of these reasons side by side, covering different portions of Chanukka:

(In Aramaic) On the 25th of Kislev are eight days during which we may not fast nor deliver eulogies. (In Hebrew) For When the Hellenists entered the Temple, they desecrated all of the oil. And when the Hasmonean dynasty grew and defeated them, they searched but found only one cruse of oil sealed with the stamp of the High Priest, and there was only enough in it to burn for one day. A miracle happened and it burned for eight days. The next year they made these days a fixed annual commemoration ... "Why did the rabbis make Hanukah eight days? Because . . . the Hasmoneans entered the Temple and erected the altar and whitewashed it and repaired all of the ritual utensils. They were kept busy for eight days. And why do we light candles? Because . . . when the Hasmoneans entered the Temple there were eight iron spears in their hands. They covered them with wood and lit candles on them. They did this each of the 8 days."

According to this, the miracle with the cruse of oil is the reason for instituting a fixed annual commemoration. The reason of eight days was that that was how long it took to repair the Temple. The reason for lighting was to reenact what the Chashmonaim did, lighting a special menorah for each of the 8 days.

Does this show a shift in the nature of the miracle? Perhaps, but not away from the military aspect. The shift is from rededication of the Temple (and possibly a Succot tie-in as well, but I will address this in a later post) after their military victory (the the rededication is stresses as the reason for instituting Chanukka) towards the miracle of the cruse of oil when they rededicated the Temple after their military victory, towards rededication of the temple after their military victory coupled with the (potentially highly symbolic) Chashmonaim's lighting of a menorah made of spears in the Temple during this rededication ceremony.

More analysis to come in later posts.

The Old Post

DovBear recently posted about the changing nature of the miracle of Chanukka, in which it started as military victory and eventually became only the miracle of the cruse of oil. Then he speculated on the reason this occurred.

This is just not so, as I noted in the comments there, but I think this deserves its own post.

Firstly, what does it mean to say that there is no attestation of the miracle of the cruse of oil? This means that in I Maccabees, there is no mention of this miracle. However, what DovBear neglects to mention, but which Rabbi Dr. David Berger does mention (see here) was that there is evidence that there were a number of miracle stories circulating then (found in II Maccabees), none of which are cited by the author of I Maccabees. This is a historiographical point - I Maccabees does not see fit to include miracles. Thus, this is an attempt to argue from absence of evidence, but absence of evidence is not evidence of absence, and in this case, it makes sense that there is an absence of evidence in this book.

What he doesn't mention is that there are numerous miracles mentioned in II Maccabees. The dating of this book is a matter of dispute. It is an abridgment of an earlier set of five books, which might have dated to contemporary to the Maccabees, but according to others, later.

Yet II Maccabees does not mention the miracle of the cruse of oil either. Again, this is arguing from absence of evidence, which is difficult given that II Maccabees is an abridgment of five books which we no longer have, and II Maccabees contains much more amazing miracles (e.g. appearance of angels).

Thus, the miracle of the cruse of oil might actually have been a fairly old one, dating even to the time of the Maccabees. Yet there is also the military victory aspect, as well as several other miracles. Saying there was one miracle does not contradict a claim that there was another miracle.

The next attestation we have for this miracle of the cruse of oil is in {update: the Hebrew scholion to} Megillat Taanit, which according to the Talmud was composed by Hananiah ben Hezekiah ben Gurion, a student of Shammai around the first century CE. The Chanukka story occurred around 165 BCE, so this is a span of about 175 years.

{Update: Note that like many other things, there is dispute about the date of composition of the Hebrew commentary to the Aramaic in Megillat Taanit. Some date the Hebrew Scholion to Megillat Taanit as Late Medieval, post-Talmudic, in which case it is not pre-Talmudic. The question next up is what is meant by the Tno Rabbanan in the gemara -- just the Aramaic or also the Hebrew explanation. In which case all this needs to be reworked.}

That account reads (inserting the portion DovBear omitted at the start, which mentions the cruse of oil):
(In Aramaic) On the 25th of Kislev are eight days during which we may not fast nor deliver eulogies. (In Hebrew) For When the Hellenists entered the Temple, they desecrated all of the oil. And when the Hasmonean dynasty grew and defeated them, they searched but found only one cruse of oil sealed with the stamp of the High Priest, and there was only enough in it to burn for one day. A miracle happened and it burned for eight days. The next year they made these days a fixed annual commemoration ... "Why did the rabbis make Hanukah eight days? Because . . . the Hasmoneans entered the Temple and erected the altar and whitewashed it and repaired all of the ritual utensils. They were kept busy for eight days. And why do we light candles? Because . . . when the Hasmoneans entered the Temple there were eight iron spears in their hands. They covered them with wood and lit candles on them. They did this each of the 8 days." Thus, there are three accounts side by side, one of which is the miracle of the cruse of oil. These explanations are not mutually exclusive. True, none of these reasons are explicitly "military victory." But it does start "And when the hand of the house of Chashmonaim became strong and they defeated them..."

Now, are we to assume that Hananiah ben Hezekiah ben Gurion just made up all of the explanations in Megillat Taanit? That is quite an allegation to lay upon him, even if one attributes it to various motivations. More likely, he was recording existing accounts, which could have been were either accurate accounts or else embellished as people told over the Chanukka story. It is quite possible he had been told this by someone of the previous generation, and this was well known at the time, and so he recorded it. This would bring the date of the genesis of the cruse of oil story earlier. And it could well have been an oral tradition. Or it could well have been a written tradition. If II Maccabees was an abridgment work composed as late as 60 CE from five other extant books, it is quite possible that Hananiah ben Hezekiah ben Gurion (from around the same time) had access to these same books!

{Update: Once again, this assumed an early date for the Hebrew Scholion.}

The next account we consider is the gemara:

"What is Hanukah? When the Hellenists entered the Temple, they desecrated all of the oil. And when the Hasmonean dynasty grew and defeated them, they searched but found only one cruse of oil sealed with the stamp of the High Priest, and there was only enough in it to burn for one day. A miracle happened and it burned for eight days. The next year they made these days a fixed annual commemoration . . ." (TB Shabbat 21b; also Megillat Taanith ch. 9)

The gemara was redacted by Ravina I, Rav Ashi, and Ravina II, and Ravina II was around 475 CE. Should we date this account to that time? Well, it stated Tno Rabanan, which is used to introduce Tannaitic material, and in fact this is a direct quote from Megillat Taanit. Only the first aspect is mentioned, because at issue was for what miracle was the festival instituted. This is a quotation of an earlier first century account.

Thus, where DovBear says, "The small jug of oil first appears in the Talmud, codified about 600 years after the events of Chanuka. In the interim, a variety of rabbinic stories were told to answer the questions," he is incorrect. The small jug of oil first appears in Megillat Taanit, about 175 years after the events of Chanukka. That is was cited in something redacted much later means nothing, unless he wants to claim that Ravina II made up the brayta. {Update: Or unless the Aramaic is the brayta, which is plausible.} It is the same thing as noting that Tosafot cites this gemara, and then putting the date of composition that much later, in the time of the Tosafists. This would be silly, and this is silly.

{Update: However, as noted above, not necessarily silly. if the Hebrew explanations are later, then the earliest attestation is indeed in the Talmud. This still does not necessarily mean Ravina II, though.}

There are also quotes from Pesikta Rabbati. This he also accidentally assigns to "in the interim" of the 600 years. In fact, Pesikta Rabbati is an early Geonic work, an 8th century midrash. These citations read:

"[At Hanukah] we commemorate the dedication of the Temple by the Hasmoneans who fought and defeated the Hellenists, and we kindle lights -- just as when [we] finished the Tabernacle in the Wilderness . . . ." (Pesikta Rabbati, ch. 6)

"Why do we kindle lights on Hanukah? Because when the sons of the Hasmoneans, the High Priest, defeated the Hellenists, they entered the Temple and found there eight iron spears. They stuck candles on them and lit them." (Pesikta Rabbati ch. 2)

Thus, we see that the military miracle, and the eight iron spears, was known to the geonim even though it was not part of the gemara's quote. This is because Ravina and Rav Ashi knew that Megillat Taanit was an extant work, and they did not need to reproduce it in full in the gemara, because others would still have access to it. And we see the geonim did have access to it, and cited it in their midrashic work.

DovBear then asks how come this shift occurred from military victory to the miracle of the cruse. I am not convinced that there is any evidence of such a shift, which prompts his speculation into reasons for the shift. After all, the cruse of oil might have occurred in the five books which were abridged into II Maccabees, together with other miracles and significant events. It existed alongside other reasons in Megillat Taanit, and was cited partially by the gemara, but those other reasons continued to exist into Geonic times.