מאי חנוכה?

In yet another PDFless post, I'd like to mention something interesting מעניינא דיומא.
The Mishnayos and Gemaras about Chanukah are very interesting, each in its own way. For starters, the most interesting thing about the Chanukah mishnayos is that there aren't any. The Gemara is interesting because for one thing, it starts off with the rather strange question "What is Chanukah, anyway?" Rishonim explain this in various ways, such as meaning "why is it 8 days?" It then answers with a braisa that is found in Megillas Taanis, but otherwise nowhere. (Yes, I am aware that the scholia of Megillas Taanis do not have this paragraph. I'm more inclined to say that the Gemara had another source (Babylonian, possibly, but not definitely) rather than that it made up a braisa. The reasonfor this should become clear later.)
I think the explanation for the Gemara's question of מאי חנוכה is very simple. Ravina and Rav Ashi expected that their reader would simply not know. Think about it: The Gemara was written in Babylonia, possibly under circumstances where Jews had other things on their minds besides for the celebration of a newbie quasi-holiday. In fact, being that the miracle happened in Eretz Yisrael, and had little to no relevence for the Babylonian Jews, they probably didn't feel any pressing need to celebrate it, especially in light of the fact that the Hasmonean dynasty went "off the D" and in any case was gone in the sands of time. Chanukah was seen as a total irrelevance. For whatever reason, Chazal felt that it shouldn't be that way, so Ravina and Rav Ashi made sure to preserve the holiday and its laws in their magnum opus.
I think if you read the Gemara in this light, certain things just click. For example, the Gemara suggests that there is no mitzva to place the menora within 10 tefachim of the ground, but we do not hold a storekeeper who does so liable for any fires he creates because if we obligated him to raise his menora, he may just decide that it's not worth the bother. Where else do we find that we're worried that a person won't do a mitzva? It must be, that even in Eretz Yisrael the mitzva of Chanuka was not seen to be very important.
Additionaly, there is the machlokes between Beis Shammai and Beis Hillel as to how to light the menora if you're a mehadrin min hamehadrin. This braisa, by the way, may also be Babylonian. If we accept that, then it is very interesting that the braisa chooses to cite the case of two sages living in Tyre...nowhere near Bavel. The only proof that the Bavliim had to cite was these two sages who lived far, far away.
If you're willing to accept this theory, than you have to face another question. Conventional internet wisdom tends to believe anything said by a professor. If it contradicts something said by Chazal, all the better. Anyway, according to this, we are asked to believe that the Gemara created the miracle of the oil in order to make the battle of the Chashmonaim irrelevant. Besides for the fact that this does not read into the Gemara (the Gemara presupposes that its reader knows the story of the Chashmonaim), it doesn't make sense practically speaking. Why not let the holiday fall on the wayside, like the rest of Megillas Taanis? By recording it, the Gemara was not trying to whitewash a remarkable story; it was trying to preserve it.

CORRECTION: After rereading the post, I realized that the Mai Chanukah braisa is not claimed to be Babylonian, though since it is sandwiched between two Babylonian braisas, it may be too.

ויד המגיה תיקצץ

One of the things that distinguishes Yeshiva learning from ahem "mechkar" is their seemingly different approaches toward establishing an accurate girsa in the Gemara. I think Yeshivas are generally reluctant to do this because first of all, the printing of the Vilna Shas "canonized" the text of the Gemara, to the extent that anything appearing in parenthesis will be skipped without being read, while anything in brackets will be read in automatically. To a certain extent, this is understandable because Yeshivas are not (and should not) be studying the Gemara, but what the Gemara says. Another reason for this is that this is just way out of their league. In order to establish a girsa, you need to compare editions that may be impossible to get, you need to learn the different layers of language, etc. etc. and besides for the fact that this is time comsuming, it also is not very engaging to the vast majority of yeshivaleit out there. It doesn't make them feel smart.
So the job was left to the Vilna Gaon, the Bach, the Messores Hashas, and the dude who puts in "Chilufei Girsaos" in the Wagschal Shas. The truth is, though, that all of these leave something to be desired. Yeshiva legend has it that the Vilna Gaon did not change a girsa uness he had 150 proofs that it was off. I remember having a problem with the reading of a braisa quoted in the Gemara. So I did what any good yeshiva boy would do: I looked at the margin and saw that it was Tosefta X:Y. Flipping there, I saw that the only way the Gemara's braisa was found in the Tosefta is if you stuff about three lines in to make it identical ---which the GRA did. Even then, the Tosefta didn't match exactly (for one thing, it didn't include the problematic words, which actually was the part the Gemara needed most for its discussion.) Somewhat disappointed (and i still don't understand the Gemara) I came to the conclusion that the Gemara was quoting a different braisa, and the GRA must have changed the girsa of the Tosefta to fit.
The Messores HaShas has a different feature, which is that I believe he changes girsaos to fit in with the Yeshivishe rules. For example, there is a rule that תניא is a braisa while תנן is a mishna. However, the rule only applies because of the many, many times that the Messores HaShas edited tanya and tnan to fit. If the change would only be made every once in a while, I'd be willing to accept it; however, the Messores HaShas makes this particular emendation so often that I'm willing to bet that the rule came first, and the fact was changed to fit it.
The Vagshal Magiah is almost not worth discussing, because he brings down differences in the text that are so minor that I'm tempted to ask "So what?" most of the time. (eg, changing גוי to עכו"ם and גזירה to שמד.)
The upshot? I think everyone needs to take any emendation with a grain of salt. To quote a line I heard somewhere:
"If the Gemara makes more sense without the Bach, don't use the Bach."

Menachem Kellner on the Zohar

Freddie over here has a post quoting Menachem Kellner's assesment of the "Zohar Question:"

So, putting the question rather tendentiously, is Judaism the sort of religion found in the Bible, Mishna, Talmud, and Maimonides, or is Judaism the sort of religion found in the Bible, Mishna, Talmud, and Zohar? These are very different sorts of religions and the answer to the question depends on the answers to the question, who wrote the Zohar and when?

Since it has to do with the theme of my last couple of posts, I thought I'd remark on this take. First of all, I find it hard to believe that there are only two options. My sources tell me that Shmuel David Luria (more on him later) was opposed to both. The Moreh Nevuchim, as we all know, was summarily banned before the Zohar was ever heard of. The Vilna Gaon, while he was a kabbalist, did not practice Zoharic Judaism (usually), but he did strongly criticize the Rambam for his philosophy. There obviously is some middle ground, and it depends not on who wrote the Zohar, but what your attitude is about the Zohar's place in Judaism (and incidentally, the Rambam's place in Judaism.)
For the record, Rabbi Daniel Frisch's שערי זוהר provides a list of kabbalists and their opinions of who wrote the Zohar. This list is very instructive:

• The Mikdash Melech writes that while Rashby did, in fact, write the Zohar, he wrote some of it posthumously from Gan Eden. (The חבורא קדמאה mentioned in the Zohar is Rashby & Co. during their lives.)
  
• The Kamarna Rebbe writes that it was edited and explained during the times of the Geonim. There is some more giluy Eliyahu etc. involved, but the point remains that according to this opinion, it was not entirely written by Rashby.
  
• Rabbi Eliyahu Galanti goes further than the Kamarna Rebbe by saying that the posttannaic material was added by a certain (shall we get Halivnian?) stamma, who incorporated other teachings and sources while he was compiling the Zohar.
  
• The Ramak writes that the Amoraic quotes in the Gemara which are found in the Zohar are really Tannaic, but the Gemara didn't record their source because אבדה ההשתלשלות, the transmission was forgotton. The source really seems to be the Zohar (or Har Sinai), but some bucherzetzer thought he was doing everyone a favor by putting the Amoraic source in the Zohar.
  
• Rabbi Chaim Vital is the one who says the Zohar was written as it is by Rashby, period full-stop.
  

I personally find Rabbi Galanti's assesment to be the most convincing, if you are (dogmatically, of course) of the opinion that the Zohar is not a forgery.

Rabbi Menachem Kasher addresses many of Gershom Scholem's arguments here. Remember that Scholem was the one who attributed the Zohar to Rabbi de Leon.