I recommend reading Avraham Ohayon’s article called “The Miracle of the Oil Flask and the Way It Was Absorbed into Jewish Law.” I got to it through a link from the Wikipedia entry called “The Miracle of the Oil Flask”:

app.shaanan.ac.il/shnaton/19/4.pdf

The article shows that in all the primary sources the miracle of the oil flask is not mentioned, and alternative explanations are given for the decision to celebrate for 8 days.
Thus in the Book of Maccabees, in the Dead Sea Scrolls, in the writings of Philo of Alexandria, in Antiquities of the Jews, in Josippon, in Megillat Ta’anit, etc., the reason for establishing 8 days is because of the “dedication of the altar,” which lasted 8 days, because the joy after the victory lasted 8 days, corresponding to the festival of Sukkot, which that year was celebrated late, and more. The miracle of the flask is not mentioned.

The “Scholion” (a commentary on Megillat Ta’anit written after the destruction) is the earliest source for the miracle of the flask, and even there it does not say that the 8 days of the festival were established following the miracle. The first who clearly linked the enactment to celebrate 8 days with the miracle of the flask was Rabbi Aḥai Gaon.

So the miracle in question apparently entered the myth as the basis of the holiday — by mistake. One can celebrate and rejoice on Hanukkah, and rejoice in the victory over the Greeks, with or without any connection to a miracle that did or did not happen.

See there at length.

The article says that the connection between the length of Hanukkah = 8 days and the miracle of the oil flask is late.
But the very existence of the miracle is written explicitly in the baraita in tractate Shabbat, and in Megillat Ta’anit. The very existence of the miracle is described in tannaitic sources, very close to the Hasmonean period.

Basically Rabbi Michael is saying he doesn’t care about thinking that the miracle of the oil flask is a myth that never was.
And that the Sages lied! (Literally so) about historical truth, and invented a story that never happened, [maybe in order to propagandize the holiday, and insert fear of Heaven into it(?)].

Just to make clear to those saying this how sharp their words are.

I hope you really read the whole article.

The baraita was edited and finalized after the destruction, which means about 350 years passed between the Hasmonean revolt (160 BCE) and the writing of the baraita (Rabbi Judah the Patriarch died around 220 CE).

The fact that in the early sources written close to the time of the Hasmoneans there is no mention of the miracle means that this is a myth that took root afterward.

The Sages did not “lie,” as you wrote. They believed the story because it seemed true to them. Later, there were commentators who understood that the miracle was the basis of the holiday. (There were also great rabbis of Israel who believed the story of the Golem of Prague; that doesn’t make them “liars.”)

And now we’ve gained the Beit Yosef’s question. The number of Hanukkah days is not connected to the oil burning for 8 days, but rather to the “dedication of the altar” or some other set of eight.

Megillat Ta’anit was written in the days of the Second Temple. As far as I know, that is undisputed.

The article explains that the mention is not in Megillat Ta’anit itself, but in the “Scholion,” which is a later commentary on it, written after the destruction.

Read carefully the end of p. 50 and the beginning of p. 51 there.

By the way, another historical blunder is apparently the story of Judith beheading Holofernes.

The Rema in section 670 (and in the Mishnah Berurah) cites from Ran that one should eat dairy foods on Hanukkah because the daughter of Yohanan the High Priest beheaded the Greek general after feeding him dairy foods.
People have already noted at length — and I won’t go into it here — that a confusion happened here. The story is apparently based on what is brought in the Book of Judith (an ancient book that was not accepted into the Jewish canon, only the Christian one), which tells a similar story. Except that in that story, the hero was a general in the Persian Empire. So the custom of eating dairy doesn’t really have much to stand on.
But then, as people say, there are many reasons to eat dairy on Hanukkah, and the main reason is the good taste of the latke, like a honey cake.

Sorry — the Assyrian Empire.

In Nebuchadnezzar’s Assyrian Empire, to be precise…

By the way, even the date of Megillat Ta’anit itself is hard to determine with certainty, and certainly there are those who dispute its having been written in the days of the Second Temple and date it later, to the second century, though I think that’s not the mainstream today. In any case, as Aharon said, the matter of the oil is not mentioned in the scroll itself but in one of its commentaries, the one in the Parma manuscript. Though even here one has to be precise: in that commentary the miracle of the oil flask is not mentioned at all, only that they found pure oil and lit the lamps with it, and established those days on which they lit the lamps as a festival. The miracle of the oil flask is mentioned only in the hybrid scholion — a scholion composed from the two manuscript scholia (Parma and Oxford), plus the scholion passages in the Babylonian Talmud and other rabbinic sources. So you learn that the miracle is first mentioned in the baraita in the Babylonian Talmud, many centuries and many kilometers removed from the event.

I don’t understand what the discussion is about concerning the truth of the story of the miracle of the oil flask. Even Trump said it — and you people specifically don’t believe? I’m astonished!

A double stupid a fortiori argument, literally. If this had just been said about some random gentile, it would merely be a stupid a fortiori argument, but this is an argument from fools.

“…Holofernes was, according to the Book of Judith, one of the apocryphal books, the Assyrian commander of Nebuchadnezzar, who was sent on a long campaign of conquest to avenge himself on the peoples of the region, and was executed by Judith…
…There is no dispute among scholars that Holofernes was not an Assyrian commander. The central historical contradiction in the Book of Judith is the presentation of the king initiating the war against Israel as ‘Nebuchadnezzar king of Assyria who sits in Nineveh.’ As is well known, Nebuchadnezzar II was king of Babylon and was never presented as king of Assyria; likewise, his capital was not Nineveh in Assyria (which had been destroyed by his father). Also, chronologically, Nebuchadnezzar’s participation in the plot is impossible: Nebuchadnezzar died in 562 BCE, whereas the plot, according to the story, takes place after the Return to Zion in 538 BCE…”

You wrote in eight lines what I wrote in three points 🙂

Obviously the holiday itself was established because of the victory over the Greeks, the salvation from their decree to bring spiritual destruction upon the Jewish people, and the liberation of the Temple and renewal of the service there, as explained in the wording of “For the miracles” (both the one in the Tosefta to Berakhot and the one in tractate Soferim).
The holiday is mentioned briefly in Megillat Ta’anit among all the days of victory and salvation on which eulogizing and fasting are forbidden, and the baraitot on it explain it. The Sages’ love for Hanukkah is testified to by the fact that they ruled that even a poor person in Israel must sell his garment to light the Hanukkah lamp, and that the full Hallel is recited on it with a blessing (which is not done even on the last days of Passover). Even in the shops in the marketplace people had the custom to light Hanukkah lamps, to the point that the Mishnah in Bava Kamma has to rule what the law is regarding a Hanukkah lamp that caused a fire.
The commandment of lighting lamps is mentioned already in Temple times, when the House of Shammai and the House of Hillel disagreed about the preferred way of fulfilling “the most meticulous of the meticulous,” which we do not find in any other law where the Sages discuss how to be “the most meticulous of the meticulous.” And obviously this is a much older custom. Would they really start, after the downfall of the Hasmonean kingdom, to light candles in order to celebrate its victory, which had faded away?

Is this pedantry yours, Sh.Tz.L.?
Because it has nothing to do with the subject.

Josephus mentions that Hanukkah is called the “Festival of Lights,” but gives a metaphorical explanation that blurs the lighting of lamps. It’s pretty clear why. To light candles ostentatiously at the entrances of houses in memory of a victorious revolt against the empire, when only a few years earlier a Jewish revolt had been crushed, would have annoyed the Greek and Roman neighbors.
From the Book of Maccabees, which survived only in the hands of sectarian or Hellenistic Jews, from whom it rolled into the Christian “canon,” perhaps one may learn from what it says, not from what it does not say.
And in any case, obviously at the time of the events what captured the main attention of the whole people was the victory, the spiritual salvation, and the purification of the Temple. A miracle performed in the Temple, of which there were ten every day, aside from the miracle that sometimes occurred with the western lamp, which burned beyond the amount of oil placed in it — a miracle done for the sake of extra stringency in purity (for ritual impurity is permitted in communal offerings) — such a miracle would draw the attention of the Pharisees, who were meticulous about purity. And since they shaped the character of the nation, in Temple times and afterward, the memory of the miracle was preserved in national consciousness by them! [Regarding “Judith,” I would note that “Holofernes” is a distinctly Greek name, and that is enough for the discerning], ‘

In paragraph 3, line 6:
… the memory of the miracle was preserved in the national consciousness by them!…

Best regards,
Sh. Tz. Levinger

The holiday of Hanukkah was established because of the victory over the Greeks, the salvation from spiritual destruction, and the purification of the Temple. The reason involving the oil flask mentioned in the baraitot is an explanation for the unique mode of celebration — by lighting lamps at the entrances of houses and courtyards — a lighting beloved by the Sages among the Pharisees, both as thanks for the miracle and as a memorial to the miracle that happened in the Temple and made possible lighting with enhanced ritual purity, which the Pharisees were especially strict about.

Best regards,
Sh. Tz. Levinger

And a note to Aharon:
Josippon is an adaptation made in the ninth-tenth century from the book of Flavius and is not an ancient source.

Sh.Tz.L.,
1. The House of Shammai and Hillel were also after the Temple (in Yavne).
2. There are indications that the lighting of the lamp was not an ancient enactment from the Hasmonean period but from the period of the House of Shammai and the House of Hillel. That also emerges a bit from Maimonides’ wording. See here in section b: https://mikyab.net/%D7%9B%D7%AA%D7%91%D7%99%D7%9D/%D7%9E%D7%90%D7%9E%D7%A8%D7%99%D7%9D/%D7%91%D7%A2%D7%A0%D7%99%D7%9F-%D7%94%D7%99%D7%93%D7%95%D7%A8-%D7%91%D7%A0%D7%A8%D7%95%D7%AA-%D7%97%D7%A0%D7%95%D7%9B%D7%94/

Sh.Tz.L.
The miracle is not brought in “baraitot” but in exactly one baraita. The baraita does not come to explain why we light lamps but to explain why there is a holiday here — that is, why Megillat Ta’anit counts eight days from the 25th of Kislev on which fasting and eulogizing are forbidden. The question here is whether the miracle happened, and all your embellishments are simply irrelevant to that.

Local master of this place,
You were precise there at first regarding the extra beautification, and it doesn’t seem to me that Maimonides had historical information that we don’t have, so one cannot learn the history of the enactment from his words. Likewise, your words that the lamps are a memorial to the miracle of the oil flask need proof. One should also note that the oil flask was probably made of clay, not tin.
In any case, it is certainly reasonable that at first no one proclaimed, “You have to light lamps,” but people lit lamps in honor of the holiday, and over time it became more and more obligatory. The House of Shammai and the House of Hillel began to discuss the parameters of the lighting, and thereby also fixed it as an absolute obligation.

Oren,
If I write too long a comment, the “reply” button disappears for me.

To Rabbi M.D.A. — many greetings,
If by the end of the Temple period beautification had already become almost obligatory, to the point that the House of Shammai and the House of Hillel disagreed about how to beautify, then it makes sense that the enactment to light the lamp is ancient.
It also doesn’t make sense that after the downfall of the Hasmonean kingdom, the Sages would begin to revive its memory through enactments and make them strict to the point of obligating a poor man to sell his garment for it. Things like that are done while “the iron is hot,” and enactments of the Sages fix the initial enthusiasm for generations.
The silence of sources preserved in Hellenistic circles about the very commandment of lighting the lamps probably indicates that among the “high society” circles immersed up to their neck in Hellenistic culture, such an act — lighting a small lamp at the entrance near the street — was considered odd.
Fortunately for us, the Pharisees and, following them, most of the people did not care “what people will say,” and “kept the little light shining on.”
Best regards,
Sh. Tz. Levinger

The discussion has drifted a bit.

Amir’s question was whether the miracle of the oil flask is a historical fact. I assumed he has trouble connecting to the holiday because of his lack of belief in the miracle, and therefore I raised 2 points:

A. It is indeed possible that the miracle did not happen. Not only because a miracle by its very nature is something unnatural, but also because it is not well anchored in the primary sources. (You can pilpul your way around why it isn’t mentioned, but at the end of the day it isn’t mentioned enough. Period.)

I cannot prove that the miracle indeed did not occur. Clearly this argument will not be resolved here. Sh.Tz.L., for example, will not be persuaded, even if the aqueduct itself proves it. I only came to make things easier for someone who doesn’t believe and is looking for a way to understand how the myth took root over the course of history.

B. Disbelief in the miracle of the flask does not pull the ground out from under celebrating Hanukkah. One can celebrate the victory of the Maccabees, from a religious or national feeling.
The name of the holiday shows that it was founded also in memory of the dedication of the altar. One can light candles, eat doughnuts, play dreidel, and rejoice (or be sad) over the departure of the Greeks from our land, with no connection to the miracle of the oil flask.

In extra-rabbinic sources from the Second Temple period there is silence about the very lighting of lamps on Hanukkah, so you want them to talk about the “miracle of the oil flask”?
The lighting of the lamps is a distinctly Pharisaic custom, and naturally its mentions should be found in Pharisaic sources. From the Temple period there is very little formulated material, for the simple reason that as long as the Temple stood, the “fellows” gathered three times a year in the study halls in Jerusalem and discussed everything that had to be discussed. Only once Jerusalem was destroyed was there fear that the traditions would be lost with the dispersal of the Sages, and therefore it became necessary to gather the teachings and recite them in brief, concise language — a project that began in Yavne and reached its height 150 years after the destruction with the sealing of the Mishnah.
Both the baraita in tractate Shabbat and the baraita in the “Scholion” are part of the work of the tannaim, and in our case both tell of the miracle of the oil flask. In the baraita of Megillat Ta’anit there is an addition in which the length of the holiday, eight days, is explained also by the fact that the purification of the Temple lasted eight days — and what is the problem with saying that both are true?

What is the source for the claim that lighting lamps is a distinctly Pharisaic custom?
The name “Festival of Lights” in Josephus shows that the holiday itself was in fact connected to fire. Certainly that’s the case in 2 Maccabees.
It seems you assume that the lighting of the lamps is connected to the miracle of the oil flask, and there is no basis for that at all.
As stated, even in rabbinic sources this is mentioned only in the Babylonian Talmud.
Even in the independent scholia (except for the one brought in the Babylonian Talmud), it is not mentioned, but only in the hybrid version from the Middle Ages, which took it from the Babylonian Talmud.

Yishai, I’m aware of the issue with the “reply” button. In the meantime, at the end of writing the comment press the TAB key five times, and that will get you to the desired button.

Regarding the Pharisaic character of the lighting of Hanukkah lamps, see the material collected by Avraham Ohayon (to which Aharon referred), which I addressed in my “pedantic” comments above, from which it appears that the Book of Maccabees, Philo, and Josephus do not mention lighting a lamp on Hanukkah. By contrast, in Pharisaic circles, already toward the end of the Temple period, there were discussions on the nature of the beautification beyond beautification, a phenomenon characteristic of a situation where the Jewish law is already firmly established from long before.
What you discussed about the Oxford text and Parma and the “hybrid compilation,” etc., are the words of Prof. Vered Noam, in her edition of Megillat Ta’anit (and before that in her articles in Tarbiz 62 and 65). In any case, it is clear that even before the Talmud there was an independent version, apparently, of a collection of baraitot that explained in Mishnaic Hebrew with an archaizing tendency the early Aramaic scroll. To this literary genre also belong “Scholion A,” “Scholion P,” and what the Talmud calls “Our Rabbis taught.”
Prof. Noam already pointed out (Tarbiz 65, p. 56) that “opinions are sharply divided between the view that the scholion is a collection of ancient baraitot, edited at the end of the tannaitic period or during the Talmudic period, and the hypothesis that it is nothing but a late composition of quotations and formulations… whose birth was in the later Middle Ages.”

How did you reach the conclusion that the other sources you mentioned are opposed to Pharisaic ones? Do you want to tell us that Josephus and Philo were Sadducees? If there was Hanukkah candle-lighting they would have known about it, and the fact that they didn’t write it proves nothing, except maybe weak evidence that the enactment had not yet been established. In any case, it’s a bit silly to present Philo as someone who doesn’t mention the commandment when he doesn’t talk about Hanukkah anywhere at all. And to say that the Book of Maccabees, an early Hasmonean book, is not Pharisaic — that’s a pretty odd claim. It seems that in your view the Pharisees are only the sages mentioned in the Mishnah. That is indeed an approach that exists in scholarship (I think your friend Chaim Lapin takes that position), but then in that case they don’t exist in earlier periods. You want there to be ancient Pharisees, carriers of the tradition, but no early source should teach us about them, because such an early source might contradict the texts that for you are canonical: the Mishnah and the Babylonian Talmud (even when it brings historical traditions about the Land of Israel that clearly were not known in the Land of Israel). This is a very, very weak apologetic stance. Maybe you manage to convince yourself of it, especially if you manage to confuse yourself with mountains of unrelated matters that evade dealing with the problem.
By the way, you forgot to include Rabbi Judah the Patriarch among them, since he too forgot to mention the commandment, and the fact that there are Hanukkah lamps is mentioned by him only incidentally and casually. Maybe in your opinion he also wasn’t Pharisaic.
Indeed, what I discussed about the scholia is from Vered Noam, except that the issue here isn’t her words but reality. She simply had the merit of being the first to notice the matter and to benefit the public.
Indeed, the Babylonian Talmud also apparently had some scholion, and that is the first and only source in rabbinic literature that mentions the miracle of the oil flask. It is a very late source, even if we do not know exactly how late (and what you quoted in her name is the history of the research; today it is clear that it is not from the late Middle Ages).
And as usual it is hard to understand how your sentences connect to one another or to the discussion as a whole. The bottom line is what I already wrote here several times: the miracle is mentioned only in the Babylonian Talmud, and in the other rabbinic sources that discuss Hanukkah there is no mention of such a miracle and there are other explanations for Hanukkah. After all your chatter, it seems that even you admit this, and it is not clear at all what you are trying to argue about.

Oren,
Thanks for the magic formula!

There is a famous Jerusalem Talmud in tractate Sukkah (5:1) about the destruction of Alexandrian Jewry, and this is its wording: “In the days of the wicked Trajan, a son was born to him on the Ninth of Av and they were fasting; his daughter died on Hanukkah and they lit lamps, and his wife sent word to him and said: Instead of subduing the barbarians, come and subdue the Jews who have rebelled against you…” (Another sort of proof: “because of gentiles — for example Persians, who had a festival day on which they allowed no light except in the house of their idolatry” [Shabbat 29b]).

I always inferred from this that lighting lamps was a general custom of rejoicing, and not a “Pharisaic” act as Rabbi Levinger stated. (There is an ambiguity in his words. He says that the lighting of the lamps has a “Pharisaic character,” and the plain meaning of his words is that such an act has no similar meaning in other groups — that is, other people do not see this as a festive symbol. Rabbi Levinger’s proof is that the non-rabbinic sources do not mention the custom of lighting. I did not understand how from the fact that a book does not mention the custom of lighting one can infer that lighting candles has no festive meaning in its eyes.)

According to my ungrounded guess, the order of events was this:

At first the Hasmoneans defeated the Greeks, dedicated the altar, and according to some sources celebrated the festival of Sukkot anew.
Later these days became festival days.

The determination that the holiday would last 8 days is in memory of the dedication that lasted 8 days (or in memory of Sukkot + Shemini Atzeret, which were celebrated late that year, and the former is primary). The length of the altar dedication at the time of the victory in war was of course fixed at 8 days under the inspiration of the 8 days of dedication of the Tabernacle, as described in the book of Leviticus.

Since it was customary at that time to celebrate with much light, it was established to increase the number of lamps on the festival days.

Over time the story of the oil flask came into being. Maybe its kernel really happened — a flask of oil hidden away was found — but the idea that a small flask was enough for 8 days took root later.

Later still, a connection was created between the story and the lamps, so that people understood that the lighting of the lamps is a memorial to the miracle of the oil flask. (The entrenchment of even more complicated myths also happens in our own times, over a much shorter period.)

Of course this is only a hypothesis.

I would be glad if you could (Rabbi Levinger) quote in full the words of Josippon that you mentioned.

By the way, there is a parallel discussion here:

https://forum.otzar.org/viewtopic.php?t=7391

Aharon,
What are the several sources according to which they celebrated Sukkot? I know 2 Maccabees.
I assume you meant to ask Sh.Tz.L. for the words of Josephus, not the words of Josippon. The source is in Antiquities 12:7:7. I can’t find a Hebrew translation online, so here is an English translation:
Now Judas celebrated the festival of the restoration of the sacrifices of the temple for eight days, and omitted no sort of pleasures thereon; but he feasted them upon very rich and splendid sacrifices; and he honored God, and delighted them by hymns and psalms. Nay, they were so very glad at the revival of their customs, when, after a long time of intermission, they unexpectedly had regained the freedom of their worship, that they made it a law for their posterity, that they should keep a festival, on account of the restoration of their temple worship, for eight days. And from that time to this we celebrate this festival, and call it Lights. I suppose the reason was, because this liberty beyond our hopes appeared to us; and that thence was the name given to that festival. Judas also rebuilt the walls round about the city, and reared towers of great height against the incursions of enemies, and set guards therein. He also fortified the city Bethsura, that it might serve as a citadel against any distresses that might come from our enemies.

Good — you nicely brought from the story of Trajan that lighting a lamp is an expression of joy, and so there was the saying: “The light of the lamp in a well-set army — there is a feast there, a feast there” (meaning a wedding feast). Lighting of this kind existed among everyone. Who did not rejoice over the victory, the salvation from Greek coercion, and the purification of the Temple? However, in such lighting there is no need at all to be strict about a specific number of lamps, or their location. Let each person light as many as he wants and wherever he wants; let them light torches and brands and dance in the streets without end.
When one lights a specific number of lamps, and specifically in a specific place, and in the less useful place, at the doorway facing outside, there is here a special religious statement to the whole world. We continue the service of Aaron the Priest, who would light the lamps in the Sanctuary in an ordered way and by number, with care “not to alter.” When suddenly even a simple Jew becomes for eight days a kind of priest, and the doorway to the street a kind of sanctuary — this is completely Pharisaic thinking, that the service of God is entrusted to all!

Thank you very much.

Yishai, you’re right, the claim that Sukkot was postponed apparently comes only from the Book of Maccabees. (By the way, in the First Temple period too, the dedication of the Temple was celebrated together with Sukkot.)

I’d be happy if someone would enlighten me as to the meaning of the phrase “And from that time to this we celebrate this festival, and call it Lights.”
Is that connected to lighting lamps? It doesn’t seem so to me.

Another interesting point. In the past I raised the hypothesis that the Hasmoneans celebrated the Temple dedication on the 25th of Kislev because of the significance of the date. In the building of the Second Temple it says in the book of Haggai: “On the twenty-fourth day of the ninth month, in the second year of Darius, the word of the Lord came to Haggai the prophet, saying… Set your hearts from this day forward, from the twenty-fourth day of the ninth month, from the day that the temple of the Lord was founded, set your hearts.” On the 24th of Kislev, in the second year of Darius king of Persia, the returnees to Zion founded the temple of the Lord, and if so it began functioning on the 25th of Kislev (I saw support for this, though I don’t remember right now where).

It may be that the Maccabees waited with the dedication until the symbolic date of the 25th of Kislev in order to create a sense of continuity.

I have now found a link between the date of the two dedications in the book Mor U-Ketzi’ah by Rabbi Jacob Emden:

Mor U-Ketzi’ah, section 670
Regarding the reason for the name Hanukkah, it seems to me, with God’s help, something new: that it is called this also on account of the dedication of the Sanctuary, which was at this time in the days of the prophet Haggai, as it is written in his prophecy [2:18] that on the twenty-fourth of the ninth, which is Kislev, it was founded, and on the next day they dedicated it with offerings (even though the Temple had not yet been built, as is stated in the midrash, and in keeping with what they said [Zevachim 62a], “One may offer sacrifices even though there is no Temple”), and with lighting from the evening, for the menorah is dedicated only in the evening, as we learned in Menachot [49a]. And on account of the dedication of the House, the days of the miracle of the lamps that occurred in that period are called Hanukkah. And from here there is great support for the custom to make meals and increase a bit in joy, and the later authorities struggled with all this.
And with this I also resolve the Beit Yosef’s question, that the first of the eight days should not have been counted…

Okay, Rabbi Levinger, but how do you know that all these fine details are ancient, going back close to the time of the Maccabees?

The matter has been sufficiently explained. I will note only regarding the new points you raised. The existence of the Pharisees is documented already in “Some of the Works of the Torah,” directed among other things against the “Seekers of Smooth Things,” against whom the “Teacher of Righteousness,” founder of the seceding sect, goes out. The accepted view is that this is from the time of Jonathan the Hasmonean, called by the sect “the wicked priest.” See Wikipedia, entry “Some of the Works of the Torah.”
As for “Who is a Pharisee?” I think most of the public hovered somewhere in the middle. Josephus is a good example. He mentions that most of the people appreciate the Pharisees for their loyalty to the tradition of the fathers, and speaks very critically of the divided and quarrelsome Sadducees. On the other hand, he is enthusiastic about the Essenes, but about Hillel the Elder he has not a word. Regarding 1 Maccabees, composed apparently in the days of John Hyrcanus, it depends on what stage of his life.
Regarding Rabbi Judah the Patriarch: he did not need to devote a tractate to Hanukkah, because its matter had already been explained in the words of the tannaim appended to the ancient Megillat Ta’anit. And in any case, even what is brought in Bava Kamma about the flax merchant who lights at the entrance of his shop testifies to the people’s fondness for Hanukkah lamps — they would light at the entrance even in a shop in the market!

To your question, how do we know that the embellishments are ancient — I already answered above: (a) From the fact that the House of Shammai and the House of Hillel at the end of the Temple period discuss how to do “beautification beyond beautification,” it follows that the very commandment to light lamps is much earlier. (b) One does not go instituting enactments and making them strict to the point of obligating a poor man to sell his garment at a time when the Hasmonean kingdom has already gone off the stage. What is this, a “commemorative candle”? 🙂 Enactments are typically made in the storm and excitement of a time of fresh enthusiasm, and then the enactment preserves the feeling for generations.

Best regards,
Sh. Tz. Levinger

Sh.Tz.L.,
I don’t need you to tell me that. The point is that this split probably took place only in the days of Jonathan the Hasmonean. By the way, note that the Pharisees are not mentioned there by name, so if you had an apologetic need you would say they are first mentioned only in the Gospels (which are relatively late, though clearly — again, if you have no apologetic needs — they reflect the time of activity of that man).
But as usual you miss the point in the discussion and spill ink on the innocent head of the ink. The question is not from when there were Pharisees but to whom you give the credit. When you say that 1 Maccabees does not mention the lamps, do you actually think it belonged to some outside sect?! That is astonishing. It was from circles close to the monarchy, which had an interest in the holiday (and you yourself argued that it is not likely that the holiday was established specifically after the events quieted down). I understand that now even you understand that if there was candle-lighting in the days of Josephus, then he too knew about it, contrary to your earlier squeezing.
It would have been better if you had given up your remarks about the Mishnah, if only because they demonstrate your flawed method of not seeking the truth but inventing answers. The fact that someone does not mention something should be interpreted not according to causal logic but according to teleological logic, and in every place the goal sanctifies the explanations. As for the substance, they are extremely flawed. Not only are they based on the existence of a composition for which there is no evidence at all (and this also harms the apologetics, because according to you Rabbi relied on this composition and turned out to be mistaken because the composition disappeared), but they simply do not fit the character of the Mishnah at all, which is not at all Rabbi Judah the Patriarch’s innovations but rather an editing of earlier material (which was probably already arranged in some way). In addition, one should remember that Purim too is mentioned in Megillat Ta’anit (if you want, I’m willing to supply you with a host of stupid distinctions between the two cases, but I’m sure you’ll manage on your own).

Aharon,
There is no way of knowing what “Festival of Lights” refers to. But when we know that on this holiday people lit lamps, it is not far-fetched to suppose that this is the source of the name.

Regarding Josephus and 1 Maccabees, the matter was well explained in my second response in this discussion. Josephus mentions that the holiday is called the “Festival of Lights” but gives it a metaphorical explanation, just so as not to let it pass his lips that Jews are obligated to light lamps. Regarding 1 Maccabees, I already wrote there that the book reached us only after passing through non-Pharisaic circles, so I cannot infer from what is not in it. Obviously, a scribe who does not know or accept such a custom of lighting lamps in every house would skip over a sentence like “and they enacted that lamps be lit at the entrances of the houses.” According to what was explained in the previous comment, that the split between Pharisees and Sadducees occurred already in the days of Jonathan, before the composition of 1 Maccabees, then the question of whether its author belonged to one side or the other must also be discussed.
Regarding the non-existence of a tractate for Hanukkah as an expression of the Mishnah editor’s opposition to the holiday — maybe you’ll say that Rabbi also opposed circumcision, fringes, and tefillin 🙂 after all, they too are mentioned only incidentally in the Mishnah. Maybe you’ve got material for a dissertation 🙂 In any case, there are three collections of baraitot appended to Megillat Ta’anit (Scholion A, Scholion P, and the “Our Rabbis taught” quoted in the Babylonian Talmud), all in Mishnaic style and mentioning only tannaim. So apparently there was tannaitic engagement with the scroll.

End of paragraph 1:
… then the question of whether its author belonged to one side or the other must also be discussed.

Paragraph 2, line 2:
… after all, they too are mentioned only incidentally in the Mishnah…

First of all, don’t put words in my mouth. I did not propose anything regarding Rabbi. You’re the one who, with great confidence, proposes absurd theories for every problem.
Second, I’m tired of explaining for every irrelevant thing you write why it is beside the point, so I’ll address only what really matters.
It seems from your words that you think the Sadducees or some other sect opposed the lighting of Hanukkah lamps. That is presumably true about the Essenes, but I hope you are not suggesting they are relevant here. It seems to me that such an assumption has no basis, nor is there any reason for it (even though it is possible), and therefore it was not wise to build edifices on it.
It is possible that Josephus does not mention the lighting because it did not yet exist, even if you don’t like that. It is possible that he thought lighting lamps on a holiday was too trivial to serve as an explanation in the eyes of the average Roman for the holiday’s name. I don’t know. The question is simply whether, when one does not know, one invents and does so according to some goal (you), or remains in uncertainty and makes hypotheses based on what one has, in an attempt to arrive to historical truth (what a good scholar ought to do).

“With God’s help, 27 Kislev 5778
To Aharon — greetings,
Antiquities of the Jews by Josephus Flavius was translated into Hebrew by Dr. Alexander Schorr. It was published by Reuven Mass Press (Jerusalem, 1940-1946), and can be viewed on the Otzar HaChochma site.
It is worth noting that arranging a lamp also concerns establishing kingship, as it is written in Psalms 132: ‘There I will make a horn sprout for David; I have arranged a lamp for My anointed,’ and perhaps the Sages also hinted at the expectation for the Davidic kingdom. Even the Hasmonean kings were careful not to be called by the title king, as explained in 1 Maccabees in the appointment of Simon, and on their coins they were called ‘the High Priest and the Council of the Jews’ (except for Yannai, who signed in Greek ‘King Alexander’).
With Hanukkah greetings full of light,
Sh. Tz. Levinger

With God’s help, 1 Tevet 5778

It seems that the Sages’ enactment to light on Hanukkah “a lamp for a man and his household” is stamped with the spirit of Yose ben Yo’ezer of Tzeredah, one of those who sanctified God’s name during the decrees of Antiochus, whose constant teaching was: “Let your house be a meeting house for sages.”
Yose ben Yo’ezer was aware of the severe spiritual crisis because of which young people were drawn to Hellenization (among them his sister’s son Yakim of Tzerorot). He thought the remedy was strengthening the Jewish home, that every house should aspire to be “a meeting house for sages.”
And in this spirit, when the Sages came to make a memorial to the victory and the purification of the Temple, they specifically chose the lighting of the lamp, which symbolizes the Torah — “Your word is a lamp to my feet” — and through the lighting of “a lamp for a man and his household” they instilled in the people the aspiration that every house be considered “a meeting house for sages”!

Yose ben Yo’ezer’s partner in spreading Torah, Yose ben Yoḥanan of Jerusalem, also emphasizes the centrality of the Jewish home. But he adds a dimension: a Jewish home should not only be “a meeting house,” but should radiate outward, and give the poor and the homeless the feeling that they are invited to enter and be received as members of the household.
This role of the home became all the more vital after the victory over the Hellenizers, when large parts of the people who had been detached from a Jewish upbringing remained detached and confused in the “vacated space” between Greekness and Judaism.
Placing the lamp at the doorway of the house also signals to “the one standing outside”: “Come in — you are our brother!”

With bright Hanukkah greetings and a good new month!
Sh. Tz. Levinger

I think your “Torah” is really very strained. After all, according to Yose and Yose (and Yose struck Yose), the focus should be on the holiness of the home: “Let your house be a meeting house for sages,” whereas the commandment of the Hanukkah lamp was given to place it outside the entrance to one’s house!!! According to their words, one should have placed it on the table, and that would be enough!!!

Therefore, it must be that the enactment is very late indeed, and perhaps should be associated with the disciple of John the Baptist who lived shortly before the destruction of the Temple. He would say: “Do not go on the way of the gentiles, and do not enter a city of Samaritans, but rather go to the lost sheep of the house of Israel. And as you go, proclaim: ‘The kingdom of heaven has drawn near!’” So spreading the light outward as “publicizing the miracle” fits his teaching extremely well.

The obligation to place the Hanukkah lamp in a low, humble place, below ten handbreadths, fits his teaching: “Blessed are the poor in spirit, for theirs is the kingdom of heaven. Blessed are those who mourn, for they shall be comforted. Blessed are the meek, for they shall inherit the earth.”

Another hint in his words to the commandment of the Hanukkah lamp, about which it is said “mezuzah on the right and Hanukkah lamp on the left,” is from his command: “But when you do an act of kindness, let not your left hand know what your right hand is doing.” And this verse corresponds by gematria, in at-bash and squaring, to “Yohanan the High Priest Hasmonean and his sons” (including the words).

(And about my words and yours it was said: “Hasidic Torah.”)

As I mentioned several times, lighting a lamp outside at the entrance of the house runs contrary to the practical role of a lamp: to give light (and likewise what you noted, lighting a lamp below ten handbreadths).
By contrast, lighting the lamp outside at the doorway fits perfectly with the teaching of Yose ben Yoḥanan, who lived at the time of the struggle against the Greeks and the Hellenizers: “Let your house be open wide, and let the poor be members of your household” — and the poor in understanding, those who wander in spiritual ways, are included; them too the lamps invite into the house!

Best regards,
Sh. Tz. Levinger

A realistic explanation for the miracle of the oil flask: it is very possible that finding the oil for lighting the holy menorah — which more than anything symbolized the Temple (since in the Second Temple there was no Ark of the Covenant), already from the prophecy of Zechariah, and the symbol of the menorah is the most common one in mosaics and Jewish finds from that time — finding the oil for lighting the menorah, sealed with the seal of the High Priest, would have been considered by them a miracle and providence. To enter a defiled and ruined Temple, which for more than three years had stood desolate and been handled by others, and amid all the destruction and idols, after much searching to find some flask of pure oil — for them that would have been a “miracle.” The oil made it possible to begin operating the Temple immediately after the date of its dedication at the beginning of the Second Temple period (24 Kislev; see the comments above from the book of Haggai), and to give breathing room for producing new pure olive oil. It is quite possible that in their eyes this was a miracle. True, they didn’t make a huge fuss over it, because after all it was within nature, and it was overshadowed by the military victory. Later they gave it pride of place and wrapped it in legend. But that doesn’t mean it was completely disconnected from a historical occurrence.

P.S.
It is worth reading Rabbi Yoel Bin-Nun’s article, which gives a historical perspective to the festival of light, going back even to First Temple times, and links it to the first-fruits of oil, which occur in this season. More broadly in his book Zakhor VeShamor,
and also here in a comprehensive article, from p. 45 to the end:

Click to access mega12_ybn.pdf

Addition: Obviously the statement that the oil was not enough even for one day is not meant literally, that this tiny amount of oil sufficed for many days, but is equivalent to the sentence: “It was a miracle to find oil even for one day — and behold, God made it so that we found enough for 8 days!” These 8 days are the days of the dedication of the altar also in the Torah, and here is yet another providential coincidence.

And parenthetically, I’ll add a metaphorical shade to the miracle of the oil flask: it is an exact reflection of the victory of the few over the many, for just as a few fighters who were enough for a small battle (oil for one day) became like many fighters (eight days). I don’t remember whether I saw this written somewhere.

Ch.Z.B. (though maybe Z.B.C. would be better)
Very nice! And it also suits the posts on the homepage these days.

Gil,
You’re not giving a realistic explanation for the miracle, but a realistic explanation for the text. You’re saying that the miracle as described did not occur, but that the description is not meant literally. In my opinion, that really is not a realistic explanation of the text. Nor is it clear to me why one should insist on finding an explanation for a “historical” text that originates many hundreds of years after the events it describes, and that describes something not appearing in other sources about the same event.

According to the description in 1 Maccabees (and following it Josephus), the 25th of Kislev is not the day of the liberation of the Temple but the day of its festive dedication after it had undergone thorough renovation. Obviously, in the time it took to renovate the Temple and rebuild the altar, they could have brought pure oil in quantity from the Galilee, which suffered less from the Greek wars.
However, there were the “eager ones who act early,” who were not willing to wait for the Temple’s restoration and wanted immediately to do what was possible — and if there is no menorah, then they stick in spits and light with them. And God helped those eager ones, opened their eyes to find a flask of pure oil, and made the oil burn far beyond its nature, and so they merited to light before the official dedication.
We celebrate for generations the festive Hanukkah, but we also commemorate the eager ones who acted earlier and the miracle they merited!
With new-month blessings and a bright Hanukkah,
Sh. Tz. Levinger

Yishai,

Thanks. My goal is to give the festival of light and miracles a connection to the dedication of the altar and the oil. I think the Sages intended the miracle literally — like the whole house of Israel — and I explain that it is not so. In this way I gain from two directions: a. I enable those of little faith to celebrate the festival of light in a realistic rather than miraculous context. b. At the same time, I do not completely strip away the connection to the Temple menorah and the finding of the flask of oil. True, the “historical” basis for this miracle is lacking; I do not dispute that at all. But removing the connection to the menorah on the one hand, and speaking of inventions of the Sages that became entrenched among all Jews to the point of inventing a new reason for the holiday — even if these are true as facts in the scholarly field — are very hard to digest in the experiential field of faith of the holiday. Therefore I suggest that the Sages did not invent the miracle of finding the flask of oil out of whole cloth, but rather based themselves on traditions current in the nation about it, and wrapped the event in a legendary hue, as was their way. Just as in the destruction legends about Betar they tell of hundreds of millions of Torah students who could destroy the Romans with their pens, and yet even though that is an exaggeration, I believe with all my heart that Betar was conquered, that it was a stronghold of Torah, and that from the point of view of its inhabitants — or of the Sages — they had reason to believe that by the power of Torah they would not be defeated. That is a realistic meaning for a legendary story. So too in the explanation that the very finding of the pure flask of oil (which in fact contained enough oil for the 8 days of inauguration) did happen, and that it was perceived by them in a subjective perspective as heavenly providence, a sort of wink from above — or in popular language, a “miracle” (I just read this Sabbath about someone who survived a huge fire in which dozens perished besides him, and he said he can’t explain how he survived; it was a “miracle”… note carefully, and enough said) — in this way I gain a realistic meaning for the aggadic description of the Sages, which did not sprout from nowhere, and which enables and calls us believers today to light the lamp and see in hidden miracles a guiding hand from above, just as by sheer good fortune it guided the Maccabees to reach the Temple and from among its ruins and impurities to find the oil for its operation and consecration. When it burned, their eyes lit up and they knew that a guiding hand had caused them to win. (Again, there is no philosophical need to believe that all this indeed happened, and not as a literal miracle as it appears in the Sages — this is only a proposal to hold onto both.)
P.S. This is a bit reminiscent of the question of Eleazar and the elephant: the famous source claims that after breaking through the Greek lines, Eleazar reached under the giant elephant and stabbed it with a spear; the elephant collapsed and buried him under it. Another source claims that he was indeed “under the elephant” — but in a totally literal sense: Eleazar drowned in elephant dung, at night, while stealthily sneaking into their pen. Of course scholarship prefers the worse version (see Meir Bar-Ilan’s article), which over generations was polished and received heroic descriptions — but the Jewish people know and embrace the story of heroism. Some claim this story is not known in the Haredi sector. So it is fitting to conclude with the words of Rabbi David HaNagid, the final Sufi grandson of Maimonides, who not only knows the story but also ties the incomplete sanctity of the holiday to it:

“And as for Eleazar the youngest, he went among the elephants and wreaked havoc among them. And this great miracle happened, the like of which had not been heard in all the lands, and their honor rose and was exalted in the world, as the prophet Zechariah, peace be upon him, prophesied concerning them and said: ‘And the Lord their God shall save them on that day as the flock of His people, for crown stones shall be lifted up over His land’ [9:16]. But their joy was not fully complete as it should have been, because Eleazar their younger brother was lost among the elephants and went missing. And were it not for this, they would have established the eight days of Hanukkah as festival days.

[Midrash of Rabbi David HaNagid (Maimonides’ grandson), end of Vayeshev Yaakov and the matter of Hanukkah, ed. Katz, Mossad Harav Kook, 1964, p. 182]”

I have no problem with stories for the masses so as not to undermine the foundations of faith. In your first message it seemed that you really meant what you were saying. Now you clarify that it’s only for political needs, so of course I have nothing to argue about.
I think scholarship actually ignores Bar-Ilan’s article completely, but I’d hate to spoil people’s fun.
Thanks for the midrash of Rabbi David HaNagid. I didn’t know it.

The description that Eleazar drowned in elephant dung appears already in Megillat Antiochus. I’ll quote here from Saadia Gaon’s version (brought at the end of his commentary on Daniel): “And Eleazar was occupied with killing the elephant, and drowned in the dung of the elephant.” According to Megillat Antiochus, the event was before the purification of the Temple.
By contrast, in 1 Maccabees Eleazar’s deed is described in the battle of Beth Zechariah, which occurred after the purification of the Temple: “And Eleazar saw one of the beasts armored with the king’s armor… and he ran to it bravely into the midst of the force… and he came beneath the elephant and stabbed it and killed it, and it fell to the earth upon him and he died there.”
Either way, Eleazar acted bravely, and his bravery is a lamp to our feet!
With bright Hanukkah greetings,
Sh. Tz. Levinger

What do you mean, “already”? Gil wrote that this appears in another source and meant Megillat Antiochus (and the reference to Bar-Ilan is to the article in which he prefers it over 1 Maccabees). Where else do you know of a mention of it, that you wrote “already”?

In Antiquities (12:4), Josephus describes Eleazar’s deed as a partial success, and concludes: “Thus this man lost his life after bravely destroying many of the enemies.”
By contrast, in The Jewish War (Book 1, chapter 1), Josephus describes Eleazar’s act as a brave but useless deed: “And there was no reward for his act except his good memory, for he raised his heart to great things and chose a name of glory over life; for the one who struck the elephant was a commoner. And even had it been Antiochus himself, Eleazar in his boldness of spirit would still not have succeeded except in showing that he chose a path of death out of slight hope for a great victory.” Not only did it bring no benefit, it also caused harm, for “this thing was an evil omen for his brothers regarding the whole outcome of the battle.”
In Antiquities Josephus is influenced by the ethos of Hasmonean heroism. In Wars — by the failure of the rebels’ heroism against Rome.
Two different points of view of the same author!
Best regards,
Sh. Tz. Levinger

Sh.Tz.L.,
Did you answer me? Because as usual it wasn’t related. But even if it wasn’t directed at me, it still doesn’t really relate here to anything. Perhaps you just came to bring up something else on a matter mentioned here.
As for the matter itself, in Antiquities Josephus relies on 1 Maccabees. In Wars he is apparently writing what seemed right to him. In any case, the difference is not surprising at all, when there are clear contradictions and not merely different points of view in the same author.

Hello and blessings!

I’ve kind of lost my head in the discussion here. Still, while sitting today in the house of stored books, a book came to my hand that has a discussion of the subject under debate, and I think it may interest the learned people here — Sh.Tz.L., Yishai, and Gil.

As is known, the early source for the miracle of the oil flask is one of the two scholions before us. I found a claim that the sentence about the miracle of the oil flask in that scholion was inserted later.

This is in a scholarly book on Megillat Ta’anit, written by Prof. Vered Noam and published by Yad Ben-Zvi in Jerusalem in 2003. In the book she analyzes the scroll and the scholion (which has 2 versions: the Oxford version — “A,” and the Parma version — “P”).

On page 271 and onward she writes roughly as follows:

“A citation of the author of Or Zaru’a (sec. 321) in the name of his teacher from Scholion A on Hanukkah differs from the version before us precisely in those sentences that seemingly transmit the miracle of the oil flask — (here she cites the relevant passage from the scholion before us, and Or Zaru’a’s citation) — it appears that before Or Zaru’a and before his teacher, Rabbi Yitzhak Sir Leon, Megillat Ta’anit had the episode of the spits and not the episode of the oil. The story of the miracle of the oil flask is cited by Or Zaru’a at the beginning of that same section ‘from the Gemara.’ Only afterward does he try to reconcile the tradition in the Gemara with the tradition of Megillat Ta’anit regarding the repair of the altar.
Also from the Oxford manuscript before us it is clear that it does not transmit the original text. It was not ‘oils’ that were defiled, as in the story of the miracle of the oil flask, but all the vessels. Its original meaning, in this context, was the Temple vessels, including the menorah. The sentence, syntactically defective, ‘there was no oil with which to light,’ is nothing but a deliberate corruption of the original sentence: ‘there was nothing with which to light oil.’ It is not the ‘oil’ that was lacking, but the ‘menorah.’ The fitting story here is the story of the ‘spits,’ not the story of the oil. It appears that the story of the miracle of the oil flask was forcibly inserted into tradition A from the Babylonian Talmud, and only after the days of Rabbi Yitzhak of Vienna, author of Or Zaru’a.” End quote.

I am not sufficiently expert in such matters, but I thought the information would contribute to the discussion.

With the blessing of “an illuminated conclusion of Hanukkah”…

With God’s help, 2 Tevet 5778

Since we dealt (incidentally, through the matter of Eleazar’s death) with Megillat Antiochus, it is worth noting that Prof. Meir Bar-Ilan in his article on Eleazar’s death (found on his website) notes that the Aramaic scholar Prof. Menahem Zevi Kaddari analyzed the Aramaic language of this scroll and concluded that it dates to the 2nd-5th centuries CE (with his opinion leaning more toward the second century). We thus find an additional tannaitic or amoraic source (besides the baraita on Megillat Ta’anit brought in the Babylonian Talmud, chapter “Bameh Madlikin”) that also brings the story of the flask of oil.

Best regards,
Sh. Tz. Levinger

What does not seem right to me in Prof. Bar-Ilan’s above article is his declared tendency to shatter the myth of Eleazar’s heroic death in 1 Maccabees. After all, even in Megillat Antiochus it is explained that Eleazar “was occupied with killing the elephant.”
Eleazar’s bravery, who was killed in his attempt to kill an elephant, emerges from all the sources — from 1 Maccabees, from Josephus in Wars, and from Megillat Antiochus. The question is only whether he was killed by the elephant falling on him (as in 1 Maccabees and Josephus) or drowned in elephant dung. That does not change the essence of his bravery.
It is a pity that “myth-shattering” is becoming fashionable in scholarship!

Best regards,
Sh. Tz. Levinger.

Just as there was a shortage of pure oil (as mentioned in the baraita in the Gemara and in Megillat Antiochus), so too there was a shortage of pure vessels, as explained in the baraitot on tractate Ta’anit and in the baraita in Avodah Zarah 43, Rosh Hashanah 24, and Menachot 28. In that baraita the tannaim disagree: according to Rabbi Yose bar Yehuda, the Hasmoneans lit with wooden spits, and according to the Sages with iron spits overlaid with tin; when they became wealthy they made them of silver, and when they became wealthier they made them of gold (and the baraita of Megillat Ta’anit followed the Sages. Full text of Megillat Ta’anit on the Da’at site).
In 1 Maccabees the festive dedication of the Temple is described, which was not immediately after the victory but on the 25th of Kislev, after the completion of the renovation and the building of the altar and the new vessels. And I already suggested above that the need for the flask of oil and the spits was in the days when they were engaged in renovation, somewhat like what Rabbi Yitzhak Sir Leon wrote in Or Zaru’a sec. 321.
Best regards,
Sh. Tz. Levinger

Indeed, you’ve lost the thread.
I already wrote here repeatedly that the source is not exactly in the scholion, precisely because it is clear that the Oxford manuscript reflects an error.
Bar-Ilan’s article has already been brought here.
I think most scholars believe Megillat Antiochus is much later. I’m not expert in their arguments on this, but at first glance it does not sound plausible that it is so early. In any case, even if it is early it is hard to see it as a tannaitic or amoraic source. If it had something in it that you didn’t like, you would say: who can guarantee for us that it came from tannaim or amoraim and not from someone you don’t like. For some reason, for you the value of sources depends on what comes out of them.
Josephus is not an independent source in addition to 1 Maccabees and has no value as support.
Bar-Ilan did not come to say that Eleazar wasn’t brave. He only said that it is more likely that there was a farce that turned into a heroic story than the other way around.

Even if we accept the separation of the sources proposed by Prof. Noam, it is clear that before the Babylonian Talmud there stood a version of the “Scholion” that included the story of the oil flask. And this source is defined as a baraita, for there it is called “Our Rabbis taught.”
It is worth noting that in most textual witnesses of Megillat Ta’anit the miracle of the oil flask appears. Was the story “inserted by force” into all of them following the Babylonian Talmud? Her proof itself from Or Zaru’a that in the version of Megillat Ta’anit before him there was no story of the oil flask does not get off the ground. Or Zaru’a copies from the scroll the passage that supports the approach of his teacher Rabbi Yitzhak Sir Leon, and therefore he had no need to copy all the words of the scroll.
Regarding Megillat Antiochus, the one who claimed that its language belongs to the Aramaic of the 2nd-5th centuries was the Aramaic scholar Prof. Menahem Zevi Kaddari. And even according to what is written there, that Eleazar was killed while “occupied in killing the elephant,” his act was heroic and not a “farce,” as Bar-Ilan says.
Best regards,
Sh. Tz. Levinger

There is no “even if” here. There are two scholions, and the fact that they were printed in mixed form doesn’t change that. If someone insists on being an idiot, he can also claim that there is no scholion at all and everything is part of the scroll itself (as it was printed).
The Babylonian Talmud had before it a scholion with this. That is true. What its source was, I do not know. The fact that before the scholion the phrase “the Sages taught” appears does not seem to me to add much.
There are no “most textual witnesses of Megillat Ta’anit.” There are two completely different versions, each represented directly by only one witness. In one version the miracle does not appear. In the other version the wording appears in the direct witness, but it is easy to see that it is corrupt, and in an indirect witness it indeed does not appear. You don’t have to be a genius to understand on your own that the direct witness was probably influenced by the Gemara. It’s not that Or Zaru’a stops in the middle of the quotation; rather, he brings different material. If you had bothered to read, you would have seen.
Farce and heroic do not contradict each other. Bar-Ilan argues that the author of 1 Maccabees thought it was embarrassing to die by drowning in elephant dung. I think that is also what most people would think, and some of them would also joke about someone who drowned in a cesspit. So you are wise and enlightened and understand that the main thing here is the bravery and that the circumstances cannot be held against him, but Bar-Ilan’s claim is that it is likely the author of 1 Maccabees changed the story because of that.

Even without the expanded version (of the first print, the Vienna manuscript, Cambridge manuscript, etc.), in the version of the baraita brought in the Babylonian Talmud, in the Oxford manuscript, and in Megillat Antiochus (dated by Prof. M.Z. Kaddari to the 2nd-5th centuries; see Bar-Ilan Book 2 [1964], pp. 211-213), the miracle of the oil flask is mentioned.
It is obvious that Rabbi Judah son of Rabbi Isaac, in Or Zaru’a, who quotes from Megillat Ta’anit, copies only the passage from the scroll that supports his words. Therefore one cannot infer from his words that in the scroll text before him the miracle of the oil flask was not mentioned. You can see his language in the laws of Hanukkah, sec. 321.

Best regards,
Sh. Tz. Levinger

You are confusing so many things, and however much I try to explain and organize it, apparently it won’t help.
It seems there were at least 3 different compositions of commentary on Megillat Ta’anit (these are different compositions even if they are related, not textual witnesses as you insist on calling them). One is represented by the Parma manuscript, and the miracle is not mentioned there. The second is represented by the Oxford manuscript, and although the miracle is mentioned in the manuscript, it is clear that the wording there is defective, and therefore one should rely on Or Zaru’a, who is an indirect witness to this version. So the miracle is mentioned only in the one in the Babylonian Talmud. By the way, in other Land of Israel sources too the Hanukkah passage is brought, and of course without the miracle of the oil flask, which apparently existed only in Babylonia. As I already wrote, no one learned from Or Zaru’a that the miracle of the oil flask was not mentioned by him, but only how the defective wording of the scholion in the Oxford manuscript should be corrected. After the correction, the miracle is no longer mentioned anyway. A little reading comprehension would not hurt.
Megillat Antiochus is not related to the matter of the scholion on Megillat Ta’anit, and I did not understand why you mentioned it. As stated, it is accepted among scholars that it is much later than the Babylonian Talmud. As stated, I don’t understand this area, and if it really is earlier, then that would be a second source in which the miracle is mentioned.

An interesting piece published today, showing that the religious public had a certain reservation about the myth of “the miracle of the oil flask”:

דתיים מתעלמים מהנס | יוסי בן–גל