Greetings. It remains a mystery concerning the recitation of Hallel on Chanukah as mentioned briefly in Archin 10b. There is the explanation of the rationale of its absence from the mishnah, which actually begs the question of why a single mishnah never enacted reciting Hallel on Chanukah for all generations - unlike Hallel on the festivals and unlike reading the megillah on Purim, about which we know there is an enactment for all generations.
The statement in the gemara by R. Yochanan does not indicate that reciting Hallel on Chanukah is a permanent decree for all generations, it just indicates that that was recited at that time, unlike the others which are known as permanent decrees.
Indeed, there is no Mishna decreeing lighting candle(s) despite its mention in later Talmudic sources.
It would seem to be logical that there was never a permanent decree about Chanukah, and that it simply became a very widespread MINHAG that acquired an almost halachic status despite the lack of mention in the Mishnah (leaving aside all the suppositions about the intentions of Rebbe in the Mishna), which included lighting a candle AND reciting Hallel, which certainly existed for other days that were forgotten as mentioned in Megilas Taanis.
Even the mention of "because of the miracle" is not specified in the gemara and may or may not have been a later addition into the gemara itself. Surely the "miracle" would have found extensive mention elsewhere such as in Midrashim.
Just my two cents. ;-)
David Goldman
David, it is good to hear from you again.
1) There is a famous explanation in the name of the Chasam Sofer, that the reason why Rebbi Yehudah ha'Nasi did not mention Chanukah in the Mishnah is because he was descended from the House of David, while the Chashmona'im were Kohanim who are not allowed to become kings, and they seized the kingship in conflict with the Halachah.
2) The Rambam (Hilchos Chanukah 3:3) writes that the Chachamim who lived at the time of the Chanukah miracle made a Takanah that Hallel should be said on all eight days of Chanukah.
3) The Rambam then writes (in Halacha 6) that it is not only on Chanukah that Hallel is mi'Divrei Sofrim, but on all days when full Hallel is said, it is mi'Divrei Sofrim.
Chanukah Same'ach,
Dovid Bloom
1) It should be noted that there is in fact a mention of the Chanukah candle in the Mishnah. This is in Bava Kama 62b which states that all year round, if a storekeeper left his candle out in the main street and somebody's camel, bearing flax, passed by and the flax caught alight and caused a fire, the storekeeper is libale for the damage because he should not have left his candle in the main street. Rebbi Yehudah adds that if this was a Chanukah candle, the storekeeper is exempt because he is allowed to leave a Chanukah candle outside.
2) I do not understand. Since the Gemara in Erchin 10b asks why we say Hallel on Chanukah even though it is not a Mo'ed and work is not forbidden on Chanukah, why should we not say that it was the Gemara itself that answered "because of the miracle". If we say that the answer of "because of the miracle" is a later addition, that would mean that the Gemara asked a question and did not answer it, which would be rather unusual.
3) The miracle of Chanukah is mentioned in the Gemara in Shabbos 21b.
Kol Tuv,
Dovid Bloom
Yes, but the single reference from that Yerushalmi mishna says nothing about any takkana or halachic obligation. Nothing of that is found in any mishna. So how can the amoraim establish a body of halacha based on something for which there is no source in the mishna or at least in the name of a tanna?! The observances are presented simply as facts, and as "mitzvas zekenim" without any source at all. And of course the Yerushalmi makes no mention of a miracle of candles or a "miracle" associated with the war (as is the case in Megillas Antiyochus which also makes no mention of a miracle of candles or the war). And the "miracle" of the candles is only briefly mentioned in the braisa, and is not mentioned in the Yerushalmi.
The explanation of the Chasam Sofer is merely a hypothesis to address the fact that nothing is mentioned in the mishna. An alternative is the way I have suggested, that there was no actual takkana. And certainly had actual miracles taken place, something would have been found in the midrash and in the gemara itself. Rambam associates with the "miracle" of the war, but nothing of this is discussed in the gemara either.
Hallel for the festivals has roots in the mishna. Hallel for Chanukah does not. And in several places the issue of Chanukah is cited in the gemara associated with a miracle that is not identified.
DG
1) The Mishnah is by no means the best source we have for making Halachic rulings. In fact, the Gemara (Sotah 22a) tells us that people who decide Halachah from the Mishnah "destroy the world." The Gemara has a much greater power of Halachic authority than the Mishnah. The Gemara (Bava Metzia 86a) tells us that Rav Ashi and Ravina represented the end of the period of making Halachic rulings, and their decisions bear the greatest weight. In addition, see Rashi to Nidah, end of 7b (DH Ha Km'l) that we cannot derive a Halachah from a Mishnah or Beraisa which states "the Halachah follows such and such...." Rashi writes that the reliable decisions are those of the later Amora'im, who worked hard to formulate the Halachic conclusion.
In short, the Mishnah is not a book of Halachah. Practical Halachah comes from the conclusion of the Talmud Bavli.
2) In addition, I do not see what is unclear about the Beraisa, "Tanu Rabanan," in Shabbos 21a. It tells us Halachos that on the eight days of Chanukah one is not allowed to make eulogies or a fast, and that the Greeks defiled the Beis ha'Mikdash and the Chashmona'im defeated them. It tells us the miracle of the oil that stayed alight for eight days, and that in subsequent years Chanukah was fixed for Hallel and thanksgiving.
Chanukah Same'ach,
Dovid Bloom
I think the point may have gotten confused. I was specifically referring to the fact that the Mishna is the foundation of the oral law. Otherwise there is no special importance of the Mishna, and everything should be the same, i.e. simply a collection of halachic opinions from the centuries after the chorban, and no difference between Tanna and Amora.
I was simply making the point that it is the Mishna that INTRODUCES observances that are binding on Jews for all generations. I was not referring to the details of such halacha which are discussed by the Amoraim.
Thus the foundations of binding observances of Chanukah are not introduced by the Mishna as takkanas simply because there never were any.
If this is not significant, then the exclusive status of the Mishna is totally lost. As far as the story of the candles is concerned, such a miracle is mentioned in the gemara only in passing, with no reference to any source. One would certainly expect an event of such magnitude to be found in a Mishnah and midrashim, which it isn't.
Even the gemara references to "the miracle" relating to hallel etc. do not even identify what miracle is referred to....not to mention the fact of how simply lighting a candle could be equivalent to reading the Megillah on Purim to "publicize" a miracle....
1) David, I think the root of our debate may be about what is considered the basis of the Oral Law. My argument is that if a Din is not mentioned in the Mishnah, that does not by any means signify that it cannot be a totally binding Halachah. I think we will find that there are many well-known and universally accepted Halachos that are not mentioned in the Mishnah. However, if something is not mentioned in the Talmud that means that it has a lower Halachic power. We often find that later Poskim write that since a certain Halachah is not mentioned in the Gemara this means it is less binding. In contrast, we do not find that the Poskim write that because something is not mentioned in the Mishnah that it has less authority.
It is worth learning well the words of Rashi in Bava Metzia 33b, DH bi'Yemei, who explains how the Mishnah was compiled. It seems to me that the principle point there is that the Mishnah is a collection of reliable opinions.
2) The Ramban at the beginning of Parshas Beha'alosecha cites a Midrash which states that Hash-m comforted Aharon that his descendants, the Chashmona'im, would light the Neros in the Beis ha'Mikdash.
Wishing you a Happy Zos Chanukah,
Dovid Bloom