Q&A: The Miracle of the Cruse of Oil
The Miracle of the Cruse of Oil
Question
Hello Rabbi. What is the source for the miracle of the cruse of oil? I don’t recall it being mentioned in the Jewish history books that documented Hanukkah and that period. Did the Talmud receive this as part of a tradition? It’s a little funny that so much was built on this, to the point that people came to think Hanukkah was established because of this miracle and not because of the miracle of the war. (And then they started asking why it was 8 days if the miracle was really only for 7 days, and more than 300 answers were written about this; it’s just a shame for the trees in the rainforests, because this question doesn’t even get off the ground. It says explicitly in 1 Maccabees that Hanukkah was instituted for 8 days just as the dedication of the altar was, and it has nothing to do with the oil.)
Or perhaps because after that battle there were other battles, and all the Hasmoneans died one after another like dominoes, which ultimately led to conquest and in the end to destruction—they preferred to “look for” another, mystical miracle unrelated to war in order to justify continuing to observe the holiday.
Or maybe this is actually an attempt to downplay the need and value of going out to war and making practical efforts within the natural course of events, while elevating mysticism and supernatural miracles, because that’s the direction they wanted to push things in?
I’m not accusing anyone of anything; it’s just that it always seemed puzzling to me how they tossed aside the natural miracle (which, by the way, is the only one mentioned in Al HaNissim, with no mention at all of the oil) and magnified a supernatural miracle that may in fact have been marginal, assuming it happened at all.
I’d be glad to hear the Rabbi’s view on the subject, and whether the Rabbi has written about it or addressed it.
Thank you very much
Answer
Various explanations can be suggested for this (the accepted explanation is that it replaced the military victory after the destruction, when that miracle was no longer relevant). I’m not especially interested in these historical questions. They don’t seem important or interesting to me. The Sages brought this aggadic tradition, and therefore people ask about it and discuss it.
Discussion on Answer
Thanks for the response, David.
The Talmud is not a history book. If something is written in the Talmud and found nowhere else, it still may be true, but the proof has to be much stronger, and that’s why I asked whether there are additional sources.
The miracle of the war is a natural miracle. That is, it is possible for the few to defeat the many; that’s something within the framework of nature (given certain circumstances). But a cruse of oil that is supposed to last one day lasting 8 days—that’s a supernatural miracle. Also, the victory was temporary and local, and it was clear that retaliation would not be long in coming.
The lighting of candles on Hanukkah began as part of the ceremony of dedicating the altar that took place after the purification of the Temple. So it’s not certain there’s any connection to the miracle of the oil.
I’m not rejecting the miracle, and I also grew up on it and on these stories like everyone else, but it’s allowed to raise doubts. (We’re not on some Maran-heritage forum; we’re on Rabbi Michi Abraham’s site. I don’t know a better place to raise doubts.)
I liked “the mistake is in the source.”
I liked “I liked ‘the mistake is in the source.’”
I heard an interesting answer: the miracle of Hanukkah was not instituted over the military-political victory (though of course that has significance), but over the religious victory, the victory of the spirit. That is why we continue to celebrate Hanukkah (unlike the other occasions in Megillat Ta’anit) even after the political destruction. Mattathias and his sons did not go to war because of political and economic oppression, but because of religious oppression. To emphasize that point, the Sages chose to emphasize the miracle of the cruse of oil over the miracle of the war. The miracle of the cruse of oil expresses the victory of the spirit and of purity. That is worthy of celebration even in exile.
Thanks. I think it’s a combination—after the war was decided in favor of the Romans, the Sages had a motive to look for a reason not dependent on battles, and after consideration they probably reached the conclusion you brought. (And then it’s not just an excuse to preserve the holiday; it simply led them to find the deeper motive, like the Rabbi’s example about the Sabbatical year in our time being rabbinic.)
I can also suggest an explanation that occurred to me today:
It may be that the miracle of the cruse of oil is actually a parable. A parable for one small, pure nation among many impure nations, which by the natural order should have lasted only a few hundred years at most, and yet endured for thousands of years. So according to this, it doesn’t really matter whether the miracle of the cruse of oil happened or not; and it may even be better if it didn’t, because that miracle is greater and more worthy of praise than this one.
Thanks everyone, interesting discussion
With God’s help, 17 Kislev 5785
To Yinon — greetings,
In Josephus, Hanukkah is called the “Festival of Lights,” but he does not mention the lighting of candles. It is possible that among priestly circles (where there was a strong Sadducean influence) they did not like the Sages’ enactment to light candles on Hanukkah, either because of their general opposition to the enactments of the Pharisees, or because they did not favor the idea that ordinary Jews too would do at the entrance to their homes what the priests did in lighting the lamps in the Temple.
For the same reason, it is possible that the authors or copyists of the book of Maccabees also did not favor the lighting of candles, and therefore refrained from mentioning the miracle of the cruse of oil; and it was preserved only in the Pharisaic tradition that appears in the “Our Rabbis taught” baraita in Megillat Ta’anit and in the Talmud.
Best regards, Fish"l
Josephus stands on the “seam line.” On the one hand, he writes that the Pharisees were considered by most of the people to be authorized interpreters of the Torah, and he knew Rabban Gamliel and mentions “Samaias and Pollion” (apparently Shemaiah and Avtalyon), yet he does not mention with a single word Yose ben Yo’ezer and Yose ben Yohanan (who were from the time of the Greek decrees), nor Shimon ben Shetah and Yehoshua ben Perahiah (who were from the time of Yannai), nor Shammai and Hillel (who were from the time of Herod), nor Rabban Yohanan ben Zakkai, his own contemporary!
It seems that Josephus stands on the “seam line” between Pharisees, Sadducees, and Hellenists, and did not fully know the Pharisees, their personalities, and their traditions.
Best regards, Fish"l
The miracle of the cruse of oil also was not the prominent event at the time it occurred. Miracles were not lacking in the Temple. The prominent event was the victory over the Greeks and the renewal of the Temple service. The finding of a cruse of pure oil, which enabled the earlier lighting of the menorah by a few days, mainly impressed the Pharisees, disciples of Yose ben Yo’ezer and Yose ben Yohanan, who were very exacting in the laws of purity; and they most likely instituted the candle-lighting, which spread among the people, most of whom relied on them, as Josephus testifies.
The lighting of the lamp at the entrance of every house expressed the home’s being “a meeting house for the Sages,” as Yose ben Yo’ezer instructed, and the home being “open wide,” as Yose ben Yohanan instructed. The lamp at the entrance of the home also called to those who had drifted away “to come back home”
The question of the miracle of the cruse of oil is why they did not abolish Hanukkah together with the other dates in Megillat Ta’anit. The Talmud assumes that Hanukkah should have been abolished together with the other dates, and its non-abolition is the exception that requires explanation. The miracle of the cruse of oil is a sign that there was something in the Hasmonean victory beyond the political-historical context of the Second Temple period. Something relevant to Jews even when they are in exile outside the Land of Israel without political sovereignty, when the Hasmonean house had long disappeared from the stage of history. It is not the reason for praise and thanksgiving, but the sign that the praise and thanksgiving are for something eternal, beyond the historical context of the Second Temple period, which was annulled together with Megillat Ta’anit.
According to Abarbanel, Yosippon is actually Rabbi Yose the Priest, a student of Rabbi Yohanan ben Zakkai; according to that, if he did not mention them, it was probably for other reasons.
Yinon,
1) It’s a bit interesting that you don’t recognize the Talmud as an authoritative source, yet you write, “it’s explicit in the book of Maccabees” [the mistake is in the source] — why are the other history books better than the Talmud?
2) The miracle of the war is not natural: the many delivered into the hands of the few, the mighty into the hands of the weak, etc.
3) All the Hanukkah commandments are in relation to that supernatural miracle of the cruse of oil. And they didn’t throw out the miracle of the war; rather, it is an expression of the miracle of the war—that the Greeks were unable to prevent anything, not even the lighting of the menorah candles, since they had issued decrees against commandments and Torah and so on.