02 Dec THE KNITTED KIPAH SHABBOS AND THE CHANUKAH OMISSION

I. Remembering Rav
Neriah
This Shabbos,
Vayishlach 5786,
is designated
as the Knitted
Kipah Shabbos in
c o m m e m o r a t i o n
of the 30th yartzeit of Rav Moshe Tzvi
Neriah. Rav Neriah was born in Russia in
1913 and studied there in yeshiva under the
brothers Rav Moshe and Rav Mordechai
Feinstein (yes, that Rav Moshe Feinstein).
He made aliyah in 1930 and studied under
Rav Avraham Yitzchak Kook, eventually
becoming one of the major disseminators of
Rav Kook’s teachings.
Rav Neriah helped establish the Bnei Akiva
youth movement and a network of Bnei
Akiva yeshivas. He was so influential in
promoting Torah and observance among
Israelis that he was called the father of the
knitted kipah generation. In his memory,
many are discussing his teachings on this
Shabbos. I would like to explore an article
he wrote on the omission of Chanukah from
the Mishnah, included in his 1992 book,
Tzenif Melukhah (pp. 177-182), in which
Rav Neriah demonstrates his extraordinary
bibliographical knowledge and acts as a
defender of the faith.

II. The Chasam Sofer on Chanukah
It seems surprising that Chanukah does
not have a tractate of Mishnah devoted
to discussing its intricate laws. There are
separate tractates for most other holidays:
Pesach (Pesachim), Rosh Hashanah, Yom
Kippur (Yoma), Sukkos (Sukkah), yom tov
itself (Beitzah) an even Purim (Megillah).
While Shavuos does not have a tractate, it
also does not have any specific laws. In fact,
not only does Chanukah lack a tractate, it is
only mentioned very incidentally in mentions
interspersed across the entire corpus of the
Mishnah.
Rav Neriah begins his essay with an
explanation attributed to Rav Moshe Sofer, the
famous Chasam Sofer (19th cen., Hungary).
Rav Avraham Yitzchak Sperling (19th cen.,
Ukraine), in his encyclopedia study of Jewish
folklore and customs, Ta’amei Ha-Minhagim
U-Mekorei Ha-Dinim (no. 487), quotes the
Chasam Sofer as saying the following. Since
the protagonists of the Chanukah story, the
Hasmoneans, usurped the throne from the

descendants of King David, R. Yehudah Ha-
Nasi who compiled the Mishnah — himself

a descendant of King David — omitted
mention of the Chanukah miracle. This is
a surprising attitude to impute to one of the
most important sages in Jewish history. It is
true that the Gemara (Shabbos 56a) says that
R. Yehudah Ha-Nasi defended King David

in halakhic argumentation because of his
ancestry. But that is a far cry from suppressing
mention of a regular Jewish holiday. Cynical
Jews can, and have, used this idea attributed
to the Chasam Sofer to attack the reliability
and impartiality of rabbinic literature.
Rav Neriah questions whether the Chasam
Sofer ever made such a suggestion as that
attributed to him. The idea is first quoted by
one of his grandsons. Indeed, the Chasam
Sofer himself, in his commentary to Gittin,
offers a different explanation, as we will
see soon. Rav Neriah offers a number of
arguments against this explanation. First, the
Hasmoneans did not initially serve as kings.
They were high priests and leaders. The first
king from the Hasmonean family was Yehudah
Aristobulos (Aristobulos I). Josephus writes:
“Now when their father Hyrcanus was dead,
the eldest son, Aristobulus, intending to
change the government into a Kingdom; for
so he resolved to do; first of all put a diadem
on his head…” (Antiquities of the Jews
13:11:1).
Additionally, Hillel was a direct descendant
of King David several generations before R.
Yehudah Ha-Nasi. Yet, Hillel openly discussed
the laws of Chanukah and adopted an
important position on the increasing number
of candles throughout the holiday (Shabbos
21b). According to Rav Shimon Kayara (8th
cen., Babylonia) in the introduction to his
Halakhos Gedolos, the elders of Beis Hillel
and Beis Shammai together wrote Megillas
Antiochus, which tells the Chanukah story.
One could counter that it was the school of
Hillel, and not Hillel himself, who took this
position. Additionally, maybe R. Yehudah
Ha-Nasi had a different disposition than
Hillel and reacted to the same phenomenon
differently.
Furthermore, this explanation assumes
that R. Yehudah Ha-Nasi believed that
the Hasmonean usurpation of the throne
rendered Chanukah unworthy of mention.
And yet, he did not try, or if he did he
failed, to nullify the holiday itself. There
are many minor holidays and fast days
mentioned in Megillas Ta’anis that were
later set aside (Rosh Hashanah 18b).
Why didn’t R. Yehudah Ha-Nasi push to
include Chanukah among the discontinued
observances? After all, Chanukah is tied
to the rededication of the Second Temple.
With its destruction, Chanukah seems like
a good candidate for discontinuance. But
R. Yehudah Ha-Nasi did not try, or did not
succeed, to discontinue Chanukah.
III. Better Explanations
Rav Neria offers additional argumentation
and then proceeds to quote three other
explanations to the omission of Chanukah.
He quotes Rav Yehoshua Preil, the
nineteenth century rosh yeshiva in Rav
Yitzchak Reines’ yeshiva in Svencionys.

Rav Preil explains that R. Yehudah Ha-
Nasi lived during a brief reprieve of

Roman oppression, or at least of some of
the oppressive Roman rules. However,

Chanukah — which celebrates Jewish
rebellion and independence — was still too
sensitive for R. Yehudah Ha-Nasi to mention
explicitly (Eglei Tal, vol. 1, ch. 3). Rav Neriah
quotes Rav Reuven Margoliyos (20th cen.,
Israel) as taking a similar historical approach
(Yesod Ha-Mishnah Ve-Arikhasah, p. 22).
Essentially, the omission of Chanukah from
the Mishnah is an example of self-censorship
to avoid government accusations.
However, Rav Neriah prefers another
approach. He quotes Rav Dov Nachman
Horowitz as saying that the detailed laws of
Chanukah are recorded in Megillas Ta’anis,
which predates the Mishnah. Indeed, the
Tannaitic citations about Chanukah quoted
in the Gemara generally originate in Megillas
Ta’anis. Since the laws were already laid out
clearly in writing, R. Yehudah Ha-Nasi had
no need to include them in the Mishnah.
Similarly, Rav Avraham Eliyahu in his
commentary on Megillas Ta’anis (1909
edition, p. 58a) adopts a similar approach.
This was also the view of Rav Yehudah
Lifschitz, whose brother I believe was the
famous publicist Rav Ya’akov Lifschitz
(Derekh Emunah, ch. 1, p. 24). Rav Neriah
adds that even though the Hebrew portions of
Megillas Ta’anis were later additions to the
Aramaic core, they still could have preceded
the writing of the Mishnah.
Rav Avraham Eliyahu also offers a third
approach (op. cit.). The Mishnah also does
not discuss in detail the laws of tzitzis, tefillin
and mezuzah. Rambam explains the omission
of these laws as due to their prevalence and
familiarity (Commentary to Menachos 4:2).
R. Yehudah Ha-Nasi generally omitted
obvious and well-known laws. Presumably,
Chanukah was also so well known that the
obligation to light candles was not necessary,
much like the obligation to recite Shema is
assumed in the Mishnah. Prof. Gedaliah Alon
writes similarly (Mechkarim Be-Toledos
Yisrael, vol. 1, p. 21). In an addendum to
the article, Rav Neriah says that one of his
students pointed out to him that the Chasam
Sofer himself adopts this view (Commentary
to Gittin 78a).
Less than a decade after Rav Neriah
published his book, Prof. Gerald Blidstein
offered another explanation (“Hannuka in
Hazal: The Missing Prayers” in Tradition
35:3, Fall 2001). He quotes only the Chasam
Sofer and not the other approaches mentioned
above. Prof. Blidstein suggests that, for

various possible reasons, R. Yehudah Ha-
Nasi chose not to mention the historical

defeat of Hellenism that underlies the holiday
of Chanukah.