Breaks In Tradition, Rabbinic Authority, and The Reasons For the Commandments

In Lawrence Schiffman's "Texts and Traditions: A Source Reader for the Study of Second Temple and Rabbinic Judaism." He brings up an idea about biblical interpretation that made me think about the oral tradition and whether it was a truly unbroken chain, given down from teacher to student, from Moses until today. First, let us look at the verses in the Torah that deal with the holiday of Succos (Vayikra 23:40-43):

מ  וּלְקַחְתֶּם לָכֶם בַּיּוֹם הָרִאשׁוֹן, פְּרִי עֵץ הָדָר כַּפֹּת תְּמָרִים, וַעֲנַף עֵץ-עָבֹת, וְעַרְבֵי-נָחַל; וּשְׂמַחְתֶּם, לִפְנֵי יְהוָה אֱלֹהֵיכֶם--שִׁבְעַת יָמִים.	40 And you shall take on the first day fruit of the beautiful tree, branches of palm-trees, and leaves of thick trees, and willows of the brook, and you shall rejoice before the LORD your God seven days.
מא  וְחַגֹּתֶם אֹתוֹ חַג לַיהוָה, שִׁבְעַת יָמִים בַּשָּׁנָה:  חֻקַּת עוֹלָם לְדֹרֹתֵיכֶם, בַּחֹדֶשׁ הַשְּׁבִיעִי תָּחֹגּוּ אֹתוֹ.	41 And you shall celebrate a celebration unto the LORD seven days of the year; it is a statute forever, for generations; In the seventh month you shall celebrate it.
מב  בַּסֻּכֹּת תֵּשְׁבוּ, שִׁבְעַת יָמִים; כָּל-הָאֶזְרָח, בְּיִשְׂרָאֵל, יֵשְׁבוּ, בַּסֻּכֹּת.	42 You shall dwell in booths seven days; all that are home-born in Israel shall dwell in booths;
מג  לְמַעַן, יֵדְעוּ דֹרֹתֵיכֶם, כִּי בַסֻּכּוֹת הוֹשַׁבְתִּי אֶת-בְּנֵי יִשְׂרָאֵל, בְּהוֹצִיאִי אוֹתָם מֵאֶרֶץ מִצְרָיִם:  אֲנִי, יְהוָה אֱלֹהֵיכֶם.	43 In order that your generations may know that I made the children of Israel dwell in booths when I brought them out of the land of Egypt: I am the LORD your God.

In the current tradition, we know that verse 40 is referring to the commandment of taking the Lulav

and Esrog. Therefore, we know these verses are teaching us that on Succos we have two main commandments, the taking of the Lulav with the Esrog and dwelling in booths. However, what if the interpretation of the verses was that the booths are to be made from the four species? What if these verses were all referring to only one commandment?

This is in fact what happened in the days of Ezra and Nechemia, at the beginning of the return of the exiles, according to Lawrence Schiffman. As it states in the book of Nechemia (8:14-17):

14And they found written in the Torah that the Lord had commanded, by the hand of Moses, that the Children of Israel dwell in booths on the festival in the seventh month.		ידוַיִּמְצְאוּ כָּתוּב בַּתּוֹרָה אֲשֶׁר צִוָּה יְהֹוָה בְּיַד מֹשֶׁה אֲשֶׁר יֵשְׁבוּ בְנֵי יִשְׂרָאֵל בַּסֻּכּוֹת בֶּחָג בַּחֹדֶשׁ הַשְּׁבִיעִי:
15And that they should announce and proclaim in all their cities and in Jerusalem, saying, "Go out to the mountain and bring olive leaves and leaves of oil trees, myrtle leaves, date palm leaves, and leaves of plaited trees, to make booths, as it is written."		טווַאֲשֶׁר יַשְׁמִיעוּ וְיַעֲבִירוּ קוֹל בְּכָל עָרֵיהֶם וּבִירוּשָׁלִַם לֵאמֹר צְאוּ הָהָר וְהָבִיאוּ עֲלֵי זַיִת וַעֲלֵי עֵץ שֶׁמֶן וַעֲלֵי הֲדָס וַעֲלֵי תְמָרִים וַעֲלֵי עֵץ עָבֹת לַעֲשׂת סֻכֹּת כַּכָּתוּב:
16And the people went forth and brought [these items] and made booths for themselves, each one on his roof and in their courts and in the courts of the House of God, and in the square of the Water Gate, and in the square of the Gate of Ephraim.		טזוַיֵּצְאוּ הָעָם וַיָּבִיאוּ וַיַּעֲשׂוּ לָהֶם סֻכּוֹת אִישׁ עַל גַּגּוֹ וּבְחַצְרֹתֵיהֶם וּבְחַצְרוֹת בֵּית הָאֱלֹהִים וּבִרְחוֹב שַׁעַר הַמַּיִם וּבִרְחוֹב שַׁעַר אֶפְרָיִם:
17And all the congregation of the returnees from the captivity made booths and dwelt in the booths, for they had not done so from the days of Joshua the son of Nun until that day, and there was exceedingly great joy.		יזוַיַּעֲשׂוּ כָל הַקָּהָל הַשָּׁבִים מִן הַשְּׁבִי | סֻכּוֹת וַיֵּשְׁבוּ בַסֻּכּוֹת כִּי לֹא עָשׂוּ מִימֵי יֵשׁוּעַ בִּן נוּן כֵּן בְּנֵי יִשְׂרָאֵל עַד הַיּוֹם הַהוּא וַתְּהִי שִׂמְחָה גְּדוֹלָה מְאֹד:

First, in this story there is no mention of the lulav and esrog, which one would expect to find if they are discussing how great the observance of the holiday was. Second, in verse 15 it seems like all the materials they are gathering is only for the building of the Sukkah, not the lulav. Lastly, verse 14 uses the language of "finding," which is used when something new is discovered. Had they possessed a tradition of how to celebrate the Succos holiday, the verse would not have used the language of "finding." Therefore, the Rabbis of the time interpreted the verse as they saw fit, and that is why this holiday was, seemingly, celebrated without the commandment of lulav and esrog.

But, perhaps Lawrence Schiffman is incorrect and his analysis is off base. Nevertheless, there are other examples in the bible that appear to say the traditions of Judaism do not proceed from Moses onward in an unbroken fashion. For example, in Kings II (22:8-14) it says:

8And Hilkiah the high priest said to Shaphan the scribe, "I have found the Scroll of the Law in the house of the Lord," and Hilkiah gave the scroll to Shaphan, and he read it.		חוַיֹּאמֶר חִלְקִיָּהוּ הַכֹּהֵן הַגָּדוֹל עַל שָׁפָן הַסֹּפֵר סֵפֶר הַתּוֹרָה מָצָאתִי בְּבֵית יְהֹוָה וַיִּתֵּן חִלְקִיָּה אֶת הַסֵּפֶר אֶל שָׁפָן וַיִּקְרָאֵהוּ:
9And Shaphan the scribe came to the king and brought back word to the king, and said, "Your servants have melted the silver that was found in the Temple, and they have given it into the hands of the foremen of the work who were appointed over the house of the Lord.		טוַיָּבֹא שָׁפָן הַסֹּפֵר אֶל הַמֶּלֶךְ וַיָּשֶׁב אֶת הַמֶּלֶךְ דָּבָר וַיֹּאמֶר הִתִּיכוּ עֲבָדֶיךָ אֶת הַכֶּסֶף הַנִּמְצָא בַבַּיִת וַיִּתְּנֻהוּ עַל יַד עֹשֵֹי הַמְּלָאכָה הַמֻּפְקָדִים בֵּית יְהֹוָה:
10And Shaphan the scribe told the king, saying, "Hilkiah the priest gave me a scroll," And Shaphan read it before the king.		יוַיַּגֵּד שָׁפָן הַסֹּפֵר לַמֶּלֶךְ לֵאמֹר סֵפֶר נָתַן לִי חִלְקִיָּה הַכֹּהֵן וַיִּקְרָאֵהוּ שָׁפָן לִפְנֵי הַמֶּלֶךְ:
11And it was when the king heard the words of the scroll of the Law, that he rent his garments.		יאוַיְהִי כִּשְׁמֹעַ הַמֶּלֶךְ אֶת דִּבְרֵי סֵפֶר הַתּוֹרָה ויִּקְרַע אֶת בְּגָדָיו:

Here again we have the language of "finding" which implies that some new information was presented. However, with this source we do not need to rely upon our own interpretation. The Radak explains what happened. Radak (verse 8):

ספר התורה מצאתי בבית ה׳. דרשו כי אחז שרף את התור׳ והטמינו מפניו ספר תורה אחת והטמינוהו תחת הנדבך ועכשיו מצא חלק׳ ספר התורה הזח ורחוק הוא זה שחזקיהו שבא אחריו שרבצ תורה בישראל איך לא הוציאו וכמה ספרי תורה הניח חזקיהו במיתו אלא מנשה מלך זמן רב שהרי מלך נ״ה שנה ועשה הרע בעיני ה׳ כתועבות הגוים ובנה מזבחות לע״ג בבית ה׳ ודוא השכיח התור׳ מישראל ואין פונה אליה כי כלם היו פונים אל האלהים אחרים ואל תקית הגוים ובנ״ה שנה נשתכחה התור׳
I found a Torah scroll in the house of G-D. The [background] explanation is that Achaz burnt the Torah and one torah scroll was hidden from him, out of sight. It was hidden under stone wall (or idolatrous temple area) and now Chilkiah found this torah scroll. This incident is difficult to understand, because Chizkiyahu, who came after [Achaz] disseminated Torah throughout Israel, so how could they not find this Torah. Also, how many Torahs did Chizkiyahu leave [in the midst of Israel] when he died? Rather, Menashe ruled for a long time, he was king for 55 years, and he did such evil in the eyes of G-D, like the wicked deeds of the nations, and built alters for idol worship. He caused Israel to abandoned the Torah and they did not turn to G-D, because all of them were turning to idols and to the ways of the nations. So, after 55 years, the Torah was forgotten. 

Here, we can see the Radak claiming that the tradition from Moses had been lost. Clearly, any oral tradition or explanation of the plain meaning of the written text was not found in these days. Thus, showing a broken link in the chain of a tradition from Moses.

This break in the link of tradition is not unique to biblical sources. In the Gemara, while speaking of the tradition of which plant is the Aravos (willow-branch) it states (Sukkah 44a):

 א׳׳ל ר׳ זירא לר׳ אבהו מי א״ר יוחנן הכי והא״ר יוחנן משום ר׳ נחוניא איש בקעת בית חורתן עשר נטיעות ערבה וניסוך המים הלכה למשה מסיני אשתומם כשעה חדא ואמר שכחום וחזרו ויסדום
R. Zera to R. Abbahu, Did R. Johanan really say this? Did R. Johanan not say in the name of R. Nehunya of the Plain of Beth Hawartan that ‘the law of the ten plants, the willow-branch and the water libation were given to Moses on Mount Sinai’? [The other] was appalled for a moment and then he answered, They were forgotten and then they were re-instituted.

Rashi here states:

  שכחום. בגלות בבל שכחו את התורה והמצות במקצת וזו נשכחה לגמרי.
They were forgotten: During the exile in Babylonia they forgot part of the Torah and the commandments and this [teaching of what the Aravos were] was completely forgot.

This idea is stated in other places in the Gemara as well. The following example is a discussion of when to use the closed form vs the open form of a letter (like a mem sofit vs a regular mem) (Shabbos 104a):

לא הוה ידעין הי באמצע תיבה הי בסוף תיבה ואתו צופים תקנינהו ואכתי אלה המצות שאין הנביא רשאי לחדש דבר מעתה אלא שכחום וחזרו ויסדום
People did not know which form came in the middle of a word and which one at the end, and the Watchmen came and ordained that the open forms should be in the middle of a word and the closed forms at the end. Still, [the text states] ‘these are the commandments’, which implies that no prophet is permitted to introduce an innovation hereafter? Rather, [we must say] this law [was in fact from heaven, but] was forgotten and the Watchmen established them again.

The point of this is to show that there is no unbroken chain from Moses to us with regards to the oral Torah. In fact, there are very few laws that were given over to Moses from Sinai. That is why the Gemara only has certain laws that we say they were a Halacha L'Moshe Mi'Sinai (A law given to Moses at Sinai from G-D). The rest of the laws are derived from logical discourse of the Rabbis.

There is no better illustration of this than the story of the Oven of Aknai (Babba Metzeia 59b) where there was a dispute between Rabbi Eliezer and the Rabbis:

וזה הוא תנור של עכנאי מאי עכנאי אמר רב יהודה אמר שמואל שהקיפו דברים כעכנא זו וטמאוהו תנא באותו היום השיב רבי אליעזר כל תשובות שבעולם ולא קיבלו הימנו אמר להם אם הלכה כמותי חרוב זה יוכיח נעקר חרוב ממקומו מאה אמה ואמרי לה ארבע מאות אמה אמרו לו אין מביאין ראיה מן החרוב חזר ואמר להם אם הלכה כמותי אמת המים יוכיחו חזרו אמת המים לאחוריהם אמרו לו אין מביאין ראיה מאמת המים חזר ואמר להם אם הלכה כמותי כותלי בית המדרש יוכיחו הטו כותלי בית המדרש ליפול גער בהם רבי יהושע אמר להם אם תלמידי חכמים מנצחים זה את זה בהלכה אתם מה טיבכם לא נפלו מפני כבודו של רבי יהושע ולא זקפו מפני כבודו של ר״א ועדיין מטין ועומדין חזר ואמר להם אם הלכה כמותי מן השמים יוכיחו יצאתה בת קול ואמרה מה לכם אצל ר״א שהלכה כמותו בכ״מ עמד רבי יהושע על רגליו ואמר לא בשמים היא מאי לא בשמים היא אמר רבי ירמיה שכבר נתנה תורה מהר סיני אין אנו משגיחין בבת קול שכבר כתבת בהר סיני בתורה אחרי רבים להטות
This was the oven of 'Aknai.  Why Aknai? Rav Yehuda said in Samuel's name: [It means] that they encompassed it with arguments as a snake, and proved it unclean. It has been taught: On that day R. Eliezer brought forward every imaginable argument, but they did not accept them. He said to them: 'If the halachah agrees with me, let this carob tree prove it!' Thereupon the carob tree was torn a hundred cubits out of its place. Others say, four hundred cubits. 'No proof can be brought from a carob tree,' they retorted. Again he said to them: 'If the halachah agrees with me, let the stream of water prove it!' Whereupon the stream of water flowed backwards. 'No proof can be brought from a stream of water,' they rejoined argued. Again he urged: 'If the halachah agrees with me, let the walls of the schoolhouse prove it,' whereupon the walls inclined to fall. But R. Joshua rebuked them, saying: 'When scholars are engaged in a halachic dispute, how can you interfere?' So they did not fall, in honor of R. Joshua, nor did they resume the upright, in honour of R. Eliezer; and they are still standing this way. Again he said to them: 'If the halachah agrees with me, let it be proved from Heaven!' Whereupon a Heavenly Voice cried out: 'Why do you dispute R. Eliezer, seeing that in all matters the halachah agrees with him?!' But R. Joshua arose and exclaimed: 'It is not in heaven.' What did he mean by this? R. Jeremiah said: The Torah had already been given at Mount Sinai; we pay no attention to a Heavenly Voice, because you have already written in the Torah at Mount Sinai, After the majority must one incline.

This story teaches us something incredible, that it doesn't matter what G-D originally intended for the Halacha to be, rather it only matters how the Rabbis interpret the Torah. The tradition that we have is not an unbroken chain of what G-D said to Moses, but of the leadership of the Rabbis telling us what they think the law should be based on the written word using their logic.

This idea is not new, in fact, it is stated straight out in the bible itself (Devarim 17:9-11):

9And you shall come to the Levitic kohanim and to the judge who will be in those days, and you shall inquire, and they will tell you the words of judgment.		טוּבָאתָ אֶל הַכֹּהֲנִים הַלְוִיִּם וְאֶל הַשֹּׁפֵט אֲשֶׁר יִהְיֶה בַּיָּמִים הָהֵם וְדָרַשְׁתָּ וְהִגִּידוּ לְךָ אֵת דְּבַר הַמִּשְׁפָּט:
10And you shall do according to the word they tell you, from the place the Lord will choose, and you shall observe to do according to all they instruct you.		יוְעָשִׂיתָ עַל פִּי הַדָּבָר אֲשֶׁר יַגִּידוּ לְךָ מִן הַמָּקוֹם הַהוּא אֲשֶׁר יִבְחַר יְהֹוָה וְשָׁמַרְתָּ לַעֲשׂוֹת כְּכֹל אֲשֶׁר יוֹרוּךָ:
11According to the law they instruct you and according to the judgment they say to you, you shall do; you shall not divert from the word they tell you, either right or left.		יאעַל פִּי הַתּוֹרָה אֲשֶׁר יוֹרוּךָ וְעַל הַמִּשְׁפָּט אֲשֶׁר יֹאמְרוּ לְךָ תַּעֲשֶׂה לֹא תָסוּר מִן הַדָּבָר אֲשֶׁר יַגִּידוּ לְךָ יָמִין וּשְׂמֹאל:

Rashi on verse 11 here even tells us (from chabad.org):

either right or left,: Even if this judge tells you that right is left, and that left is right. How much more so, if he tells you that right is right, and left is left!- [Sifrei]

ימין ושמאל: אפילו אומר לך על ימין שהוא שמאל ועל שמאל שהוא ימין, וכל שכן שאומר לך על ימין ימין ועל שמאל שמאל:

To further drive home this point, I will bring in the Rambam in the Sefer HaMitzvos (312th negative commandment):

The 312th prohibition is that we are forbidden from disagreeing with the Sages who pass down the Oral Tradition (may they rest in peace), or from deviating from any of their instructions in Torah matters. The source of this prohibition is G‑d's statement (exalted be He), "Do not stray from the word that they declare to you."

And the 174th positive commandment:

The 174th mitzvah is that we are commanded to obey the Beis Din HaGadol and act in accordance with all their instructions regarding what is prohibited and what is permitted. There is no difference whether it is something they received by Oral Tradition; derived using one of the principle of Torah extrapolation; decreed in order to correct some laxity or in response to some other situation where they found it appropriate and that it would strengthen Torah observance. We are required to obey all such directives and to act in accordance with their words, not to transgress them.The source of this commandment is G‑d's statement (exalted be He), "You must keep the Torah as they interpret it for you [and follow the laws that they legislate for you]."

The Rambam is telling us that the Rabbis are the keepers of the tradition and that, although there is no unbroken chain for all the laws, there is an unbroken tradition of following the great Rabbis of the generation. Those are our leaders and they are the ones we must follow.

Still, why would G-D set up our religion in this manner? Are we not looking for the truth? Don't we want to know what G-D actually said to Moses? This setup seems to be telling us that G-D's original intention when giving the commandments to Moses is irrelevant. So then, what is the purpose of giving the Jewish people the commandments?

There is an argument in Babba Metzeia (115a) that is based on whether the commandents have reasons behind them (like to make us better people) or if they are just for us to perform because G-D told us to perform them:

 אלמנה בין שהיא ענייה בין שהיא עשירה אין ממשכנין אותה שנאמר לא תחבול  בגד אלמנה: גמ' ת״ר אלמנה בין שהיא ענייה בין שהיא עשירה אין ממשכנין אותה דברי ר׳ יהודה ר״ש אומר עשירה ממשכנין אותה ענייה אין ממשכנין אותה שאתה חייב להחזיר לה ואתה משיאה שם רע בשכנותיה למימרא דר׳ יהודה לא דריש טעמא דקרא ור״ש דריש טעמא דקרא והא איפכא שמעינן להו דתניא ולא ירבה לו נשים ר׳ יהודה אומר מרבה הוא ובלבד שלא יהו מסירות את לבו ר״ש אומר אפילו אחת והיא מסירה את לבו ה״ז לא ישאנה א״כ מה ת״ל ולא ירבה לו נשים אפילו כאביגיל לעולם ר׳ יהודה לא דריש טעמא דקרא ושאני הכא דמפרש קרא ולא ירבה לו נשים ולא יסור מאי טעמא לא ירבה לו נשים משום דלא יסור ור״ש מכדי בעלמא דרשינן טעמא דקרא לכתוב רחמנא לא ירבה ולא בעינן לא יסור ואנא ידענא מאי טעמא לא ירבה משום דלא יסור לא יסור דכתב רחמנא למה לי אפילו אחת ומסירה את לבו הרי זה לא ישאנה:
MISHNAH. A MAN MAY NOT TAKE A PLEDGE FROM A WIDOW, WHETHER SHE BE RICH OR POOR, FOR IT IS WRITTEN, THOU SHALT NOT TAKE A WIDOW'S RAIMENT TO PLEDGE. GEMARA. Our Rabbis taught: Whether a widow is rich or poor, no pledge may be taken from her: this is R. Judah's opinion. R. Simeon said: A wealthy widow we take pledges from, but not a poor one, for you are bound to return [the pledge] to her, and you bring her into disrepute among her neighbors. Now, shall we say that R. Judah does not interpret the reason of the Writ (reason for the commandments), while R. Simeon does? But we know their opinions to be the reverse. For we learned: Neither shall he multiply wives to himself, [that his heart turn not away]; R. Judah said: He may multiply [wives], providing that they do not turn his heart away. R. Simeon said: He may not take to wife even a single one who is likely to turn his heart away; what then is taught by the verse, Neither shall he multiply wives to himself? Even such as Abigail! In truth, R. Judah does not Interpret the reason of Scripture; but here it is different, because Scripture itself states the reason: Neither shall he multiply wives to himself, and his heart shall not turn away. Thus, why ‘shall he not multiply wives to himself’? So ‘that his heart turn not away.’ And R. Simeon [argues thus]: Let us consider. As a general rule, we interpret the Scriptural reason: then Scripture should have written, ‘Neither shall he multiply [etc.].’ but ‘and his heart shall not turn away’ is superfluous, for I would know myself that the reason why he must not multiply is that his heart may not turn away. Why then is ‘shall not turn away’ [explicitly] stated? To teach that he must not marry even a single one who may turn his heart.

Here, the Gemara is introducing us to a fundamental argument, do the commandments have underlying LOGICAL reasons? Rebbe Shimon believes they do and Rebbe Yehuda does not. This leads to a statement made by Rambam (The Guide for The Perplexed in Part 3 Chapter 48):

When in the Talmud (Ber. p. 33b) those are blamed who use in their prayer the phrase, "Thy mercy extendeth to young birds," it is the expression of the one of the two opinions mentioned by us, namely, that the precepts of the Law have no other reason but the Divine will. We follow the other opinion [that the Laws have reasons].

The Rambam is telling us that, as a general rule, we follow the commandments and interpret them with the idea that they have underlying reasons, not just that G-D told us to do them. This is further elucidated by the Rambam (Guide for the perplexed Part 3 Chapter 31 Friedlander translation):

 There are persons who find it difficult to give a reason for any of the commandments, and consider it right to assume that the commandments and prohibitions have no rational basis whatever...  On the contrary, the sole object of the Law is to benefit us. Thus we explained the Scriptural passage, "for our good always, that He might preserve us alive, as it is this day" (Deut. vi. 24). Again, "which shall hear all those statutes (ḥuḳḳim), and say, surely this great nation is a wise and understanding people" (ibid. iv. 6). He thus says that even every one of these "statutes" convinces all nations of the wisdom and understanding it includes. But if no reason could be found for these statutes, if they produced no advantage and removed no evil, why then should he who believes in them and follows them be wise, reasonable, and so excellent as to raise the admiration of all nations? But the truth is undoubtedly as we have said, that every one of the six hundred and thirteen precepts serves to inculcate some truth, to remove some erroneous opinion, to establish proper relations in society, to diminish evil, to train in good manners or to warn against bad habits. All this depends on three things: opinions, morals, and social conduct. We do not count words, because precepts, whether positive or negative, if they relate to speech, belong to those precepts which regulate our social conduct, or to those which spread truth, or to those which teach morals. Thus these three principles suffice for assigning a reason for every one of the Divine commandments.

 The commandments are there to make us morally, socially and emotionally better people. This is why the Rabbis are given such great power over the law, because they are supposed to guide us as to how best to understand the laws in a way that will improve us and update our morals and social constructs with an evolving society. The best example of the Rabbis doing this can be found in the Gemara in Babba Kamma (83b):

אמאי?  עין תחת עין אמר רחמנא אימא עין ממש לא סלקא דעתך דתניא יכול סימא את עינו מסמא את עינו קטע את ידו מקטע את ידו שיבר את רגלו משבר את רגלו ת״ל מכה אדם ומכה בהמה מה מכה בהמה לתשלומין אף מכה אדם לתשלומין ואם נפשך לומר הרי הוא אומר לא תקחו כופר לנפש רוצח אשר הוא רשע למות לנפש רוצח אי אתה לוקח כופר אבל אתה לוקח כופר לראשי אברים שאין חוזרין
Why [pay compensation]? Does the Divine Law not say ‘Eye for eye’? Why not take this literally to mean [putting out] the eye [of the offender]? — Let not this enter your mind, since it has been taught: You might think that where he put out his eye, the offender's eye should be put out, or where he cut off his arm, the offender's arm should be cut off, or again where he broke his leg, the offender's leg should be broken. [Not so; for the Torah] comes to teach , ‘He that smiteth any man. . .’ ‘And he that smiteth a beast . . .’ just as in the case of smiting a beast compensation is to be paid, so also in the case of smiting a man compensation is to be paid. And should this [reason] not satisfy you, note that it is stated, ‘Moreover you shall take no ransom for the life of a murderer, that is guilty of death’, implying that it is only for the life of a murderer that you may not take ‘satisfaction’, whereas you may take ‘satisfaction’ [even] for the principal limbs, though these cannot be restored.’

Here we see the Rabbis using one of the logical principles for biblical exegesis to teach that a barbaric act, taking an eye for an eye, should not be followed. They instead reinterpret the verse in a non-literal way in order to morally improve this law. This could only be done if we believe that there are reasons for the commandments, because then man can use his logic to try and figure out the reason. With the goal being moral, social and emotional improvement, that Rambam tells us, the Rabbis can then interpret the law following these guidelines.  (Also, other laws that point out this idea are multiple wives and slavery that are no longer acceptable in Judaism)

Lastly, I want to share the words of the Meiri in his Sefer Hamidos: 

Fulfilling the Mitzvos (Commandments) with the intent that they are being performed to serve the creator is sufficient for the masses and the nation. However, it is proper for individuals to try and understand all that is possible, according to their capabilities, [with regard to what are the reason for the Mitzvos]. As it says in Psalms (119:66), "Teach me good reason and knowledge; for I have believed in Your Mitzvos (commandments)." What [Psalms] means is that even though I believe in Your Mitzvos and I fulfill all of the Torah, I request to know the reason and wisdom [behind] them. This is not in order to doubt the witnesses that have testified that these Mitzvos are true, because I already believe in them. Also, my belief (emunah) does not rely on the study of these things to the extent that if I found a good connection I would believe or if I found something I considered a lie I would deny them, because this is Kefira (Heresy) and a removal of the religion completely.

The Meiri points out that the most learned of the people (aka the Rabbis) should try and understand the reasons behind the commandments. The reason for this is clear now, the Rabbis need to understand the reasons for the commandments in order for them to interpret the law appropriately. The oral tradition is based on the guiding principle that the Rabbis will lead us to a morally, socially and emotionally improved law. There is no unbroken tradition that teaches us what G-D actually said at Sinai, because it doesn't matter. Lo bashamayim hi, it is not in heaven. The Rabbis are here to guide us in the principles of Judaism through the laws that they interpret in a manner that is forever being tweaked based on our improved understanding of the reasons for the commandments. 

Why Shavuous is the Most Important Holiday

In Judaism there are two main types of "holidays:" A celebration for something good that happened to us as a people or a national day of repentance either because of something bad that happened to us as a nation or a day of repentance in order to better ourselves as a nation. Both categories have days established by the Torah and Rabbis. In the first category we have holidays like Succos, Chanukkah, Purim, Pesach and Shavuous. In the latter category we have days such as Rosh Hashana, Yom Kippur and all the fast days. By the days of repentance it is clear in the Torah why we celebrate Rosh Hashana and Yom Kippur, they are national days for repenting in order to better ourselves and realize G-D is our king. Also, the Rabbis make clear why we have days like Tisha Bi'av, because terrible tragedies occurred on those days. On the same note, there are clear reasons why we celebrate the holidays of Succos, Chanukkah,  Purim, Pesach and Shavuous. The Aruch HaShulchan (Orech Chaim 494:2) States:


אף על פי שהתורה לא זכרה עניין מתן תורה בשבועות, לפי שהתורה כשניתנה – ניתנה לעד ולעולמי עולמים; ואין שייך לקבוע יום מיוחד בשביל זה כבכל המועדים שרק ביום זה היה עניין המיוחד לזה, כמו יציאת מצרים בפסח וסוכות ענני כבוד בסוכות שהיתה לזמן קבוע בהליכתם במדבר. אבל התורה הוא לעד ולעולמי עולמים, ולכן תלתה התורה החג הזה בהקרבן של שתי הלחם שהיתה רק ביום זה. מכל מקום בתפילה אנו אומרים "זמן מתן תורתינו", מפני שבאותו היום שחל אצלנו שבועות, דהיינו ששה בסיון – ניתנה תורה לישראל. כדתניא בשבת (פו ב) תנו רבנן: בששה בחודש ניתנה תורה לישראל. רבי יוסי אומר: בשבעה בו והלכה כחכמים:

"Even though the Torah does not mention the subject of giving the Torah [with regards to Shavuous], because when the Torah was given, it was given for all times and it is not relevant to establish a specific day in order for [celebrating] this (the giving of the Torah) like by all other holidays that there is a specific subject designated for that day like [the subject of] the Exodus from Egypt on Pesach and the temporary booths made out of  The cloud of Glory [that we celebrate] on Succos because it was a limited time that they were traveling in the desert. However, the Torah [is not for a limited time] it is forever. Therefore, the Torah hung on this holiday [of Shavuous] the Korban (sacrifice) of the two loaves of bread that is only on this day. Nevertheless, during prayer we say "The time of receiving our Torah" because on that day Shavuous occurred, for it was the 6th of Sivan that the Torah was given to Israel. Like we learned in Gemara Shabbos (86b) "Our Rabbis taught us, On the Sixth of the month the Torah was given to Israel. Rebbe Yosei said, on the seventh, and the law is like the Rabbis."     

Basically, on Succos G-D saved us from the dangers of the desert by protecting us with the cloud of glory, on Pesach we were freed from bondage, and on Shavuous we received the Torah. However, looking at all these explanations for why we celebrate these holidays, something seems amiss. Every single holiday in the celebratory category has something in common, there was some sort of rescue for the Jewish people, except Shavuous. Yes, we received the Torah, but how can we define that as a rescue of the Jewish nation?It is clear on the other days how G-D performed miracles to either protect the Jews or rescue them from harm, but on Shavuous it is unclear what was the rescue or protection from harm.

In order to understand Shavuous we need to first discuss what happened by the giving of the Torah. For this we must look at the verses in Shemos chapter 20 and explain them. (Shemos 20:1-23)
Chapter 20
א וַיְדַבֵּר אֱלֹהִים אֵת כָּל-הַדְּבָרִים הָאֵלֶּה לֵאמֹר: 

1 And G-d spoke all these words, saying: 

ב אָנֹכִי יְהוָֹה אֱלֹהֶיךָ אֲשֶׁר הוֹצֵאתִיךָ מֵאֶרֶץ מִצְרַיִם מִבֵּית עֲבָדִים:

2 I am HaShem thy G-d, who brought thee out of the land of Egypt, out of the house of bondage. 

 

 ג לֹא-יִהְיֶה לְךָ אֱלֹהִים אֲחֵרִים עַל-פָּנָי:

3 Thou shalt have no other gods before Me. 

 

ד לֹא-תַעֲשֶׂה לְךָ פֶסֶל וְכָל-תְּמוּנָה אֲשֶׁר בַּשָּׁמַיִם מִמַּעַל וַאֲשֶׁר בָּאָרֶץ מִתָּחַת וַאֲשֶׁר בַּמַּיִם מִתַּחַת לָאָרֶץ:

4 Thou shalt not make unto thee a graven image, nor any manner of likeness, of any thing that is in heaven above, or that is in the earth beneath, or that is in the water under the earth;

 

ה לֹא-תִשְׁתַּחֲוֶה לָהֶם וְלֹא תָעָבְדֵם כִּי אָנֹכִי יְהוָֹה אֱלֹהֶיךָ אֵל קַנָּא פֹּקֵד עֲוֹן אָבֹת עַל-בָּנִים עַל-שִׁלֵּשִׁים וְעַל-רִבֵּעִים לְשׂנְאָי:

5 thou shalt not bow down unto them, nor serve them; for I HaShem thy G-d am a jealous G-d, visiting the iniquity of the fathers upon the children unto the third and fourth generation of them that hate Me; 

 

ו וְעֹשֶׂה חֶסֶד לַאֲלָפִים לְאֹהֲבַי וּלְשֹׁמְרֵי מִצְוֹתָי:

6 and showing mercy unto the thousandth generation of them that love Me and keep My commandments. 

 

ז לֹא תִשָּׂא אֶת-שֵׁם-יְהוָֹה אֱלֹהֶיךָ לַשָּׁוְא כִּי לֹא יְנַקֶּה יְהֹוָה אֵת אֲשֶׁר-יִשָּׂא אֶת-שְׁמוֹ לַשָּׁוְא:

7 Thou shalt not take the name of HaShem thy G-d in vain; for HaShem will not hold him guiltless that taketh His name in vain.

 

ח זָכוֹר אֶת-יוֹם הַשַּׁבָּת לְקַדְּשׁוֹ: 

8 Remember the sabbath day, to keep it holy. 

 

ט שֵׁשֶׁת יָמִים תַּעֲבֹד וְעָשִׂיתָ כָּל-מְלַאכְתֶּךָ:

9 Six days shalt thou labour, and do all thy work;

 

י וְיוֹם הַשְּׁבִיעִי שַׁבָּת לַיהוָֹה אֱלֹהֶיךָ לֹא-תַעֲשֶׂה כָל-מְלָאכָה אַתָּה וּבִנְךָ וּבִתֶּךָ עַבְדְּךָ וַאֲמָתְךָ וּבְהֶמְתֶּךָ וְגֵרְךָ אֲשֶׁר בִּשְׁעָרֶיךָ:

10 but the seventh day is a sabbath unto HaShem thy G-d, in it thou shalt not do any manner of work, thou, nor thy son, nor thy daughter, nor thy man-servant, nor thy maid-servant, nor thy cattle, nor thy stranger that is within thy gates; 

 

יא כִּי שֵׁשֶׁת-יָמִים עָשָׂה יְהֹוָה אֶת-הַשָּׁמַיִם וְאֶת-הָאָרֶץ אֶת-הַיָּם וְאֶת-כָּל-אֲשֶׁר-בָּם וַיָּנַח בַּיּוֹם הַשְּׁבִיעִי עַל-כֵּן בֵּרַךְ יְהוָֹה אֶת-יוֹם הַשַּׁבָּת וַיְקַדְּשֵׁהוּ:

11 for in six days HaShem made heaven and earth, the sea, and all that in them is, and rested on the seventh day; wherefore HaShem blessed the sabbath day, and hallowed it.

 

יב כַּבֵּד אֶת-אָבִיךָ וְאֶת-אִמֶּךָ לְמַעַן יַאֲרִכוּן יָמֶיךָ עַל הָאֲדָמָה אֲשֶׁר-יְהוָֹה אֱלֹהֶיךָ נֹתֵן לָךְ:

12 Honour thy father and thy mother, that thy days may be long upon the land which HaShem thy G-d giveth thee. 

 

יג לֹא תִרְצַח לֹא תִנְאָף לֹא תִגְנֹב לֹא-תַעֲנֶה בְרֵעֲךָ עֵד שָׁקֶר:

13 Thou shalt not murder.

13 Thou shalt not commit adultery.

13 Thou shalt not steal.

13 Thou shalt not bear false witness against thy neighbour. 

 

יד לֹא תַחְמֹד בֵּית רֵעֶךָ לֹא-תַחְמֹד אֵשֶׁת רֵעֶךָ וְעַבְדּוֹ וַאֲמָתוֹ וְשׁוֹרוֹ וַחֲמֹרוֹ וְכֹל אֲשֶׁר לְרֵעֶךָ:

14 Thou shalt not covet thy neighbour's house; thou shalt not covet thy neighbour's wife, nor his man-servant, nor his maid-servant, nor his ox, nor his ass, nor any thing that is thy neighbour's. 

 

טו וְכָל-הָעָם רֹאִים אֶת-הַקּוֹלֹת וְאֶת-הַלַּפִּידִם וְאֵת קוֹל הַשֹּׁפָר וְאֶת-הָהָר עָשֵׁן וַיַּרְא הָעָם וַיָּנֻעוּ וַיַּעַמְדוּ מֵרָחֹק: 

15 And all the people perceived the thunderings, and the lightnings, and the voice of the horn, and the mountain smoking; and when the people saw it, they trembled, and stood afar off. 

 

טז וַיֹּאמְרוּ אֶל-משֶׁה דַּבֶּר-אַתָּה עִמָּנוּ וְנִשְׁמָעָה וְאַל-יְדַבֵּר עִמָּנוּ אֱלֹהִים פֶּן-נָמוּת:

16 And they said unto Moses: 'Speak thou with us, and we will hear; but let not G-d speak with us, lest we die.' 

 

יז וַיֹּאמֶר משֶׁה אֶל-הָעָם אַל-תִּירָאוּ כִּי לְבַעֲבוּר נַסּוֹת אֶתְכֶם בָּא הָאֱלֹהִים וּבַעֲבוּר תִּהְיֶה יִרְאָתוֹ עַל-פְּנֵיכֶם לְבִלְתִּי תֶחֱטָאוּ:

17 And Moses said unto the people: 'Fear not; for G-d is come to prove you, and that His fear may be before you, that ye sin not.' 

 

יח וַיַּעֲמֹד הָעָם מֵרָחֹק וּמשֶׁה נִגַּשׁ אֶל-הָעֲרָפֶל אֲשֶׁר-שָׁם הָאֱלֹהִים:

18 And the people stood afar off; but Moses drew near unto the thick darkness where G-d was. 

 

יט וַיֹּאמֶר יְהוָֹה אֶל-משֶׁה כֹּה תֹאמַר אֶל-בְּנֵי יִשְׂרָאֵל אַתֶּם רְאִיתֶם כִּי מִן-הַשָּׁמַיִם דִּבַּרְתִּי עִמָּכֶם: 

19 And HaShem said unto Moses: Thus thou shalt say unto the children of Israel: Ye yourselves have seen that I have talked with you from heaven. 

 

כ לֹא תַעֲשׂוּן אִתִּי אֱלֹהֵי כֶסֶף וֵאלֹהֵי זָהָב לֹא תַעֲשׂוּ לָכֶם

20 Ye shall not make with Me--gods of silver, or gods of gold, ye shall not make unto you. 

 

כא מִזְבַּח אֲדָמָה תַּעֲשֶׂה-לִּי וְזָבַחְתָּ עָלָיו אֶת-עֹלֹתֶיךָ וְאֶת-שְׁלָמֶיךָ אֶת-צֹאנְךָ וְאֶת-בְּקָרֶךָ בְּכָל-הַמָּקוֹם אֲשֶׁר אַזְכִּיר אֶת-שְׁמִי אָבוֹא אֵלֶיךָ וּבֵרַכְתִּיךָ:

21 An altar of earth thou shalt make unto Me, and shalt sacrifice thereon thy burnt-offerings, and thy peace-offerings, thy sheep, and thine oxen; in every place where I cause My name to be mentioned I will come unto thee and bless thee. 

 

כב וְאִם-מִזְבַּח אֲבָנִים תַּעֲשֶׂה-לִּי לֹא-תִבְנֶה אֶתְהֶן גָּזִית כִּי חַרְבְּךָ הֵנַפְתָּ עָלֶיהָ וַתְּחַלֲלֶהָ:

22 And if thou make Me an altar of stone, thou shalt not build it of hewn stones; for if thou lift up thy tool upon it, thou hast profaned it. 

 

כג וְלֹא-תַעֲלֶה בְמַעֲלֹת עַל-מִזְבְּחִי אֲשֶׁר לֹא-תִגָּלֶה עֶרְוָתְךָ עָלָיו:

23

Neither shalt thou go up by steps unto Mine altar, that thy nakedness be not uncovered thereon.

There are a few questions to be asked, but firstly, G-D claims, verse 18, that He spoke to us directly and that we saw this occur. However, it appears to be that Moshe was the one that spoke to us and we did not see G-D speak from heaven as seen at the end of the previous chapter (19:25), "So Moses went down unto the people, and told them" regarding all of this in chapter 20. So, how can G-D claim that He is the one who spoke to us directly and that "Ye yourselves have seen that I have talked with you from heaven." That seems to be false, Moshe saw that G-D spoke from heaven, not the rest of Israel.

However, later when Moshe was recounting this event (Devarim 5:19-23) he states a very good reason as to why it seems that only Moshe spoke with G-D:

יט  וַיְהִי, כְּשָׁמְעֲכֶם אֶת-הַקּוֹל מִתּוֹךְ הַחֹשֶׁךְ, וְהָהָר, בֹּעֵר בָּאֵשׁ; וַתִּקְרְבוּן אֵלַי, כָּל-רָאשֵׁי שִׁבְטֵיכֶם וְזִקְנֵיכֶם.	19 And it came to pass, when ye heard the voice out of the midst of the darkness, while the mountain did burn with fire, that ye came near unto me, even all the heads of your tribes, and your elders;
כ  וַתֹּאמְרוּ, הֵן הֶרְאָנוּ יְהוָה אֱלֹהֵינוּ אֶת-כְּבֹדוֹ וְאֶת-גָּדְלוֹ, וְאֶת-קֹלוֹ שָׁמַעְנוּ, מִתּוֹךְ הָאֵשׁ; הַיּוֹם הַזֶּה רָאִינוּ, כִּי-יְדַבֵּר אֱלֹהִים אֶת-הָאָדָם וָחָי.	20 and ye said: 'Behold, the LORD our God hath shown us His glory and His greatness, and we have heard His voice out of the midst of the fire; we have seen this day that God doth speak with man, and he liveth.
כא  וְעַתָּה, לָמָּה נָמוּת, כִּי תֹאכְלֵנוּ, הָאֵשׁ הַגְּדֹלָה הַזֹּאת; אִם-יֹסְפִים אֲנַחְנוּ, לִשְׁמֹעַ אֶת-קוֹל יְהוָה אֱלֹהֵינוּ עוֹד--וָמָתְנוּ.	21 Now therefore why should we die? for this great fire will consume us; if we hear the voice of the LORD our God any more, then we shall die.
כב  כִּי מִי כָל-בָּשָׂר אֲשֶׁר שָׁמַע קוֹל אֱלֹהִים חַיִּים מְדַבֵּר מִתּוֹךְ-הָאֵשׁ, כָּמֹנוּ--וַיֶּחִי.	22 For who is there of all flesh, that hath heard the voice of the living God speaking out of the midst of the fire, as we have, and lived?
כג  קְרַב אַתָּה וּשְׁמָע, אֵת כָּל-אֲשֶׁר יֹאמַר יְהוָה אֱלֹהֵינוּ; וְאַתְּ תְּדַבֵּר אֵלֵינוּ, אֵת כָּל-אֲשֶׁר יְדַבֵּר יְהוָה אֱלֹהֵינוּ אֵלֶיךָ--וְשָׁמַעְנוּ וְעָשִׂינוּ.	23 Go thou near, and hear all that the LORD our God may say; and thou shalt speak unto us all that the LORD our God may speak unto thee; and we will hear it and do it.'

The people of Israel heard G-D, but were so frightened that they begged that G-D should not continue speaking to them directly, rather only through Moshe did they want to hear Him.

Getting back to the narrative in Shemos we can somewhat understand what happened. G-D was going to state all ten commandments to the entire congregation of Israel, but the congregation prevented that from happening. Thus, only a limited number of the ten commandments were said by G-D to the whole congregation and the rest were from Moshe to the children of Israel. However, the Torah writes all ten commandments in congruous order, how are we to know which commandments were said by G-D to the Jewish people? The answer, again, lies directly in the verse as can be seen in verse 19, "And HaShem said unto Moses: Thus thou shalt say unto the children of Israel: Ye yourselves have seen that I have talked with you from heaven" and in the very next verse it says, "Ye shall not make with Me--gods of silver, or gods of gold, ye shall not make unto you." Now, which commandment said that the Jewish people should not make other gods? That was the second commandment. Why was it being repeated here? That was the last thing that G-D said to the Jewish people directly. Therefore, He says to Moshe to tell all of the congregation of Israel that "Ye yourselves have seen that I have talked with you from heaven." And what was the last thing that G-D said to them? "Ye shall not make with Me--gods of silver, or gods of gold, ye shall not make unto you."

So, what happened at Mount Sinai? Not only did G-D give us the Torah, but He spoke to us directly. Every single Jew that was there, at the base of the mountain, knew there was a G-D to the same level of certainty that they knew Moshe existed, Pharoh existed, and that they themselves existed. They saw, heard and felt G-D's presence just like anyone would feel a fellow human being standing right next to them. 

This is why Shavuous has the greatest "protection" that is celebrated more so than all other holidays. The events at Mount Sinai, culminating with the giving of the Torah, protected the Jewish people from annihilation and continues to protect us. On Pesach we were rescued from Pharoh's hand and subjugation, Succas G-D protected us from the wild animals and the barrenness of the desert, but Shavuous commemorates the constant protection that we get from G-D each and every day. 

This can be seen best by how we celebrate these holidays. Pesach we commemorate the tale of how we left Egypt. How G-D ripped us out of Pharoh's grasp and saved us from slavery. The climax of Pesach is the eating of the Matza which allows us to remember the subjugation we felt, only to relive the freedom we experienced. On Succos we dwell in temporary huts, Succahs, that remind us of the Annanei Hakavod, clouds of glory, that protected us from the desert. G-D allowed us to live in the desert for 40 years without a care in the world because of His protection. However, on Shavuous we learn Torah. What does that remind us of? It reminds us of the constant protection we receive from G-D and the constant perpetuation of the Jewish religion that the Torah provides. 

As nice as the freedom from bondage and the protection provided by the clouds of glory were, they were not grand enough to form an idea so strong that it could create a new entity so strong that it could withstand the test of time. Until the events at Sinai everyone was still an individual at heart. True, at this point they were a nation, but a nation was not what G-D wanted to create. That is why Rashi tells us (Shemos 19:2) that the Jewish people were gathered at the base of the mountain, 

כאיש אחד בלב אחד
 "Like one man with one heart." 

This was the formation of a nation, but not just a nation, a religion. If the Jewish people were like one man, that would be a nation and nations can be destroyed just like the nations of the world that have come and gone, the Romans being the best example. The Jewish people were not only like one man, they were like one man with one heart. A religion is something that connects people with more than just a physical location and mutual benefits from working together. A religion is something that binds people together through beliefs and ultimate purpose. Being part of a nation can create purpose, but not ultimate purpose. In the end of the day, people in a nation work together because it benefits the individual. The Jewish people work together specifically because it benefits the nation as a whole and the nations connection to G-D. That is why the focus of every Jew is, ideally, Jerusalem and the Temple and not their personal home. The events that we are celebrating on Shavuous are those that created this religion which, ultimately, is what gives the Jewish religion its everlasting nature. 

This idea is best seen in the Kuzari what is known as the "Kuzari Principle." The Kuzari is a book written by Rav Yehuda HaLevi in the middle ages. It discusses many philosophical ideas in the context of a nation that existed from around 700 CE to 900 CE called the Kingdom of the Khazars. The idea that Rav Yehuda HaLevi brings down is, basically, that not only do the Jews base their religion on the events at Mount Sinai, but also the Christians and Muslims base the foundation of their religions on the events at Mount Sinai of G-D speaking to the entire congregation of Israel. It is because of this event that Monotheism became a mainstay idea in the world. As it says in the Kuzari (1:4) that the Christian Scholar claimed,


מאמין אני בכל מה שספר על כל אלה בתורה ובספרי דברי הימים לבני ישראל אותות אשר לא יתכן לכפר באמתתם כי מפרסמים היו והתמידו זמן רב ונגלו בהמונים גדולים
In short [I believe] in all that is written in the Tōrāh and the records of the Children of Israel, which are undisputed, because they are generally known as lasting, and have been revealed before a vast multitude.

and the Muslim Scholar claimed (1:9)


ט) אמר החכם המוסלימי: והלא ספרנו הקדוש מלא ספורים על משה ע"ה ועל בני ישראל ספורים אשר אין להטיל ספק באמתתם כל אשר עשה האלוה בפרעה ואשר קרע את הים והעביר בו בשלום את אשר רצה בהם וטבע את אשר קצף עליהם ואשר הוריד אחרי כן לישראל את המן ואת השלו ארבעים שנה ואשר דבר עם משה בהר סיני ואשר העמיד את השמש ליהושע ועזרו במלחמתו בגבורים וכן כל שארע לפי כן המבול ומהפכת סדום ועמורה האין כל אלה מפרסמים עד בלי השאיר מקום לספק פן יש בזה מעשה תחבולה או תעתוע דמיון:
9)The Doctor: Is not our Book full of the stories of Moses and the Children of Israel? No one can deny what He did to Pharaoh, how He divided the sea, saved those who enjoyed His favour, but drowned those who had aroused His wrath. Then came the manna and the quails during forty years, His speaking to Moses on the mount, making the sun stand still for Joshua, and assisting him against the mighty. [Add to this] what happened previously, viz. the Flood, the destruction of the people of Lot; is this not so well known that no suspicion of deceit and imagination is possible?

It is because of this event that Mark Twain eventually wrote 3000 years after Judaism was created (Harper's Magazine, September 1899), 

"All things are mortal but the Jew; all other forces pass, but he remains. What is the secret of his immortality?"

We can see how important the events at Mount Sinai were with regards to rescuing, saving and preserving the Jewish people. Without G-D first revealing Himself to the Jewish people there would have been no creation of a religion. It is only because everyone knew that G-D spoke to Moshe that they were able to create this religion which presented itself as the Torah. Also, the only reason we have an oral tradition that is regarded as being from G-D and not just rabbinic interpretation is because the entire nation KNEW that G-D spoke directly to Moshe. If the Torah was directly from G-D, the explanation was clearly from G-D as well because Moshe spoke directly to G-D as witnessed by the entire nation. Hence, when we learn Torah all night we are commemorating the fact that the Jewish people heard G-D directly and from that moment onward knew, beyond a shadow of a doubt, that G-D spoke directly to Moshe. There is no other prophet that we can be 100% sure of except for Moshe. The Rambam even says in the Mishna Torah (Yisodei HaTorah Perek 7 Halacha 7):


ואפשר שיעשה אות ומופת ואינו נביא וזה האות יש לו דברים בגו. ואעפ"כ מצוה לשמוע לו הואיל ואדם גדול וחכם וראוי לנבואה [הוא] מעמידים אותו על חזקתו. שבכך נצטוינו כמו שנצטוינו לחתוך את הדין ע"פ שני עדים כשרים ואע"פ שאפשר שהעידו בשקר הואיל וכשרים הם אצלינו מעמידין אותן על כשרותן. ובדברים האלו וכיוצא בהן נאמר הנסתרות לה' אלהינו והנגלות לנו ולבנינו. ונאמר כי האדם יראה לעינים וה' יראה ללבב: 

It is possible that a person will perform a sign or wonder even though he is not a prophet - rather, the wonder will have [another cause] behind it. It is, nevertheless, a mitzvah to listen to him. Since he is a wise man of stature and fit for prophecy, we accept [his prophecy as true], for so have we been command.
[To give an example of a parallel:] We are commanded to render a [legal] judgment based on the testimony of two witnesses. Even though they may testify falsely, since we know them to be acceptable [as witnesses], we presume that they [are telling the truth].
Considering these matters and the like, [Deuteronomy 29:28] states: "The hidden matters are for God, our Lord, but what is revealed is for us and our children," and [I Samuel 16:7] states: "Man sees what is revealed to the eyes, but God sees into the heart." (Translation found here)

This is with regard to all other prophets, but not Moshe. Moshe is THE reason we accept other prophets. That is because other prophets we are relying on circumstantial evidence, but by Moshe the entire nation saw that he spoke to G-D. This singular observation is why Judaism is able to withstand the test of time. The Jewish people saw Moshe speak with G-D and because of that we accept the Torah with its oral explanation. The Torah and its oral explanation is what keeps the Jewish people together with a common ultimate purpose and this ultimate purpose is what prevents the Jewish people from fading away. That is what we celebrate on Shavuous and that is why it is the most important Jewish holiday.

Translating My Brother-in-law's Chapter on "The Law of Beautifying [the Mitzva] of Ner Chanukah" Part 3

Before you read this start at the beginning of the whole discussion found here.


Section 4: The Explanation of the argument (between Rambam and Rama) by the "GRIZ" (Rabbi Yitzchak Zev Soloveitchik).


There is a third way to explain the argument between the Rambam and the Rama. See the SHUT (Questions and answers) of the Beis Haleivi (Second part siman 47) where he explains the argument between authorities by Bris Milah (circumcision) regarding [parts of skin that were missed by the Moel (circumciser), but are not considered to negate the Mitzva (commandment) if they are missed]. According to the Rambam, whether it is a weekday or Shabbos, once the Mohel removed his hand (finished performing the act of cutting) he is not allowed to go back and cut off these extra pieces of skin which is a hidur( beautification) of the Mitzva (commandment) [to have cut these extra pieces off]. The Beis Halevi explains that the root of the argument is how to view the relationship of the performance of the Mitzva (commandment) and the beautification of the Mitzva. According to the rambam it is impossible to separate the two actions [of the actual Mitzva and the beautification]. Therefore, once the Mohel removes his hand from performing the Mitzva there is no way to connect the cutting of the extra skin that is not preventative of fulfilling the Mitzva to the main part of the Mitzva because the Mitzva was already completed. However, the Tur and the Rama would say as long as the Mitzva is still around (as is the case by Bris Milah) it is possible to perform a beautification of that Mitzva even though it is not in the same action of, and therefore has no connection to, the main part of the Mitzva. Therefore, (according to the Tur and Rama) one would perform the beautification of the Mitzva (aka cutting off the extra skin), during the week [but not on Shabbos] even if the Mohel already performed the main Mitzva but left some extra skin.


According to this explanation given by the Bais Halevi, the GRIZ (The laws of Chanukah) tries to explain the argument [between the Rambam and the Rama] by Ner Chanukah (Chanukah lighting).  He says that the Rambam and the Rama are just holding according to their own opinions [spelled out by Bris Milah). The Rambam holds that it is impossible to separate between the performance of the main part of the Mitzva and the performance of the beautification of the Mitzva. So, when it comes to the man of the house lighting the main part of the Mitzva is fulfilled with his lighting. Therefore, he is the one that must be lighting for everyone in order to fulfill the beautification of increasing the number of candles. According to this opinion (Rambam) we see that the main part of the Mitzva and the beautification are performed in one action. This is not the case by the Rama who holds that it is possible to separate between the performance of the Mitzva and the beautification of the Mitva. Therefore, [since the Rama allows for two separate actions] it is possible for every person in the house to light for themselves [to fulfill the beautification of the Mitzva]. 

Translating My Brother-in-law's Chapter on "The Law of Beautifying [the Mitzva] of Ner Chanukah" Part 2

Before reading this see part 1 here.

Section 2: Concerning Mihadrin Min Hamihadrin (Beautification of the beautification; the level of adding an extra candle for each night) does the man of the house light for everyone in the house or does each individual light for themselves?

The Rambam (4:1) writes "And a greater beautification than this and a way to fulfill the Mitzva (commandment) in the best way is for every person in the house to have a candle lit for them and add an extra candle each night." We can imply from this that, according to the Rambam, the way to perform the Mitzva according to the idea of beautification is that the man of the house should light numerous candles with regards to all the people in his household (and not that every person should light their own candle). In light of this, if we look at the Rama (671:2) where he writes, "There are those that say every person in the household should light their own candles," [the Rama is, seemingly, not even holding like the Rambam]. In fact, there are Achronim(Commentators that lived after the 16th century) that say it appears that the Rama doesn't hold like either opinion (Rambam or Tosfos). In fact, we already saw that the Rama does not hold like Tosfos because of how he relates the Mitzva of Mihadrin and Mihadrin Min hamihadrin, but now we see the Rama does not even hold like Rambam because, according to the Rambam, only the man of the house lights whereas, according to the Rama, everyone lights for themselves. If this is true, then the Rama's opinion needs further investigation.

There are those who get rid of this question by claiming that the Rambam's position was dealing with a situation where Jews lit the Menorah outside by the doorpost and the Rama's position was dealing with a situation where Jews lit their candles inside the house. However, [this does not seem like a good reconciliation because] their words do not imply this. Rather, it appears to be that, really, the Rambam and the Rama argue and we need to explain what they are arguing on.

Section 3: Explanations that Achronim (16th century and later commentators) offer regarding the argument between the Rambam and the Rama that we just discussed in section 2.

First, in order to explain the argument, we must ask what are the parameters of every person in the household lights for themselves (the opinion of the Rama). The SHUT (Questions and answers) of Rabbi Akiva Eiger (Siman 13) explains that the people of the household should have in mind not to fulfill their Mitzva (commandment) on account of the lighting of the man of the house and then they are able to light for themselves with a blessing, because (when they light for themselves) they are fulfilling their main obligation. Also, there are those that say this IS the way to fulfill the beautification of a candle being lit for every person in the household, because every person is fulfilling their own Mitzva (commandment) for themselves and they are not fulfilling their Mitzva through the man of the house. For further information see SHUT (Questions and answers) of the Ksav Sofer (Shulchan Orech, Orech Chaim Chapters 133-134) for he also holds like this.

(E-man: Just to add my own two cents here, this idea most probably comes from the idea in the Gemara that tells us in the second chapter of Kiddushin (41a), that it is always better for a person to do a Mitzva himself or herself rather than use a messenger to fulfill the Mitzva.)

On these words Rav Yosef Dov Soloveichik zt'l explained (Kozeitz Mesorah part 4 page 9) the argument between the Rambam and the Rama. We can say the Rambam argues on [the Rama's understanding] of how to perform the beautification of every person in the household requires their own candle by admitting that the Rambam holds that, in truth, the people of the house do fulfill their Mitzva with the lighting of the man of the house, but the reason we light extra candles for each person in the household is because that IS the beautification of the Mitzva (commandment), to increase the number of candles. This is the language of Rav Yosef Dov Soloveichik:

"According to the Rama the decree of beautification was not only that a person should not be in doubt of whether he or she fulfilled their obligation with the candle of the house, rather it was instituted because every person has a personal obligation (Chovos Gavra) and therefore they should fulfill their obligation through their own lighting. However, according to Rambam, a person fulfills their obligation, even Mehadrin, with the candle of the house, but there was a decree of Mehdrin solely with regard to increasing the number of candles that were to be lit... However, [accord to Rambam] there is no personal obligation (Chovos Gavra) that was created."

Rav Turtzin in his book Kuntres Chanukah and Megilah (Chanukah Siman 8) also explains [the Rambam and the Rama's argument] in this manner. Also, Rav Soloveichik says that the practical difference between [the Rambam and Rama] is in a situation with children that have not yet reached the age of being taught (Chinuch). According to the Rama they do not light, but the Rambam would say the man of the house lights for them as well. On a similar note, Rav Turtzin says there is another difference, women. See the Mishna Berurah (671:9) that according to the Rama a man's wife does not light because Ishto Kigufo (His wife is like part of his body), but according to the Rambam there are those that say the man of the house would light for them as well.

Furthermore, we can say that the root of the argument between the Rambam and the Rama is dependent on the differentiation made in the Achronim with regards to the parameters of the main obligation of a candle for every man in his house. (See the Pnei Yehoshua and Sefas Emes on Tractate Shabbos 21b) On one side there are those that say there is a personal obligation (Chovos Gavra) on every person, but they are able to fulfill their obligation with the lighting of the man of the house. On the other side we can say there is an obligation on every household, like the Mitzva of Mezuzah, and the basic law is that every house only needs one candle. According to this we can explain that the Rama holds that there is a personal obligation (Chovos Gavra) and that the parameters of Hidur (beautifying) Mitzva (commandment) is that every single person must fulfill the obligation of lighting. However, the Rambam would not say like this. He would say that the foundation of the Mitzva (commandment) is that it is an obligation on the house and the parameters of Hidur (beautifying) is that the man of the house lights candles for all the people in the household and the Mitzva with the beautification is done through the increased number of candles.

It is possible to connect this second explanation with the first. We could propose that Rabbi Akiva Eiger's opinion (explaning the Rama) goes on the placing [of the candle] as being the main obligation, the personal obligation (Chovos Hagavra), and it is at this time a person would have in mind not to fulfill their obligation [with the man of the house]. However, according to the Rambam, who says it is an obligation on the house, it would be impossible to have intent not to fulfill your obligation [with the man of the house] because everyone in the house fulfills their obligation once the man of the house lights [the candles]. This is why the Rambam is forced to say that the parameters of Mehadrin (beautifying) are the increased number of candles for every person in the house.

(I did not see this coming. I mean, a Chakira of Cheftza vs Gavra, from Rav Soloveichik?? That was unpredictable. Hameivin Yavin)

See Part 3 Here

Translating My Brother-in-law's Chapter on "The Law of Beautifying [the Mitzva] of Ner Chanukah" Part 1

UPDATED****** (I changed some wording around in order to make the second part more easily understandable)

My brother-in-law, Rabbi Dovid Gottlieb (not the PhD in mathematics), was the Rabbi of congregation Shomrei Emunah in Baltimore Maryland. He wrote a book with the title of Ateres Yaakov that deals with various topics in Jewish Law. I decided to translate and comment on the section that has to do with Chanukah. It is separated into 14 sections.

Section 1: The relationship between the laws of Mehadrin (beautifying the Commandment) and Mehardin min Hamihadrin (even more beautifying of the Commandment).

It states in the Gemara in Shabbos (21b) "The Rabbis teach us that the commandment of Chanukah is that every house requires a candle. A beautification of the commandment is that every person in a house requires a candle. An even further beautification is either; as Beis Shammai says, the first day eight candles are lit and every subsequent day one candle is removed; or it is, as Beis Hillel says, the first day one candle is lit and every day an extra candle is added." We follow Beis Hillel (Shulchan Orech, Orech Chaim, 671:2).

There is a relationship between the beautification of the first level of beautification and the beautification of the second level of beautification. Tosfos says (Ibid. heading Mehadrin Min hamihadrin) the law of adding an extra candle every day(Beis Hillel's opinion) is in place of (instead of) a candle for each and every person in the house. To fulfill the commandment of Mihadrin min Hamihadrin (An even further beautification of the commandment) only the man of the house has to light, but he has to light in a manner that he adds an extra candle every day (until there are eight candles).

Tosfos explains that it must be so (that the Mihadrin min Hamihadrin commandment is performed with the parameters of only one person lights and adds an extra candle every day) because if it wasn't so then there would be no way to recognize what is the current day. For, if every person requires a candle to be lit for them then the observer who sees the candles will think that the number of candles represents the number of men in the house and the observer will not recognize that the candles represent the number of days [of Chanukah].

However, Rambam (Chanukah 4:1) argues on Tosfos and says that the law of adding an extra candle each day is included in the laws of every person requiring a candle be lit for them.(Everyone has an extra candle added each day, not just one person for the whole house) See the Shulchan Orech (Orech Chaim 671:2) where he holds like Tosfos and see the Rama (Ibid) where he argues on the Shulchan Orech and holds like Rambam. Also take a look at the Taz (Ibid) where he points out that this is an exception where the Shulchan Orech follows Tosfos and the Rama follows Rambam.

The position of the Rambam is a little bit of a question. It appears to be that Tosfos is correct that if every person has candles lit for them and the candles represent the number of nights of Chanukah there is no recognition [by an observer] that a person is lighting an extra candle for each day. The beautification of the Mitzva (commandment) requires further investigation because really there is a Tannaic dispute of whether the beautification of the mitzva needs to be recognized. However, it teaches in Tractate Yoma (70a) that the beautification of the mitzva (commandment) is "In order for the masses to see its appearance. (See Rashi there)"

In the GRA's commentary (671 heading viyeish omrim) he explains that the argument (Between Tosfos and Rambam) is dependent on two possible reasons that can be applied to the opinion of Beis Hillel that is found in the Gemara. The first line of reasoning is that [the reason we light an extra candle each night is] to count the amount of days of Chanukah that have gone by. The second line of reasoning is that one always goes upward in holiness and not downward. The GRA explains that the question of [whether or not the candles count] needs to be recognized is dependent on this argument. For, it is only if we say that the main reason [for lighting extra candles] is to count the days of Chanukah that we would need the amount of candles to be recognizable. However, if the main reason is because we always go upward in holiness and not downward, then no recognition of the amount of candles is needed.

It appears from the continuation of the Gemara, where it talks about a happening of two elders, that it explains the main reason (we increase the amount of candles every day) is because we always go upward in holiness and not downward. Therefore, it seems like we can answer according to Rambam's opinion because according to his opinion it doesn't matter if the number of candles are recognized as the amount of days for there is no problem with [them not being recognized]. If this is the case we can imply from the words of the GRA that, essentially, the Rambam agrees that there are reasons one should be careful that the beautification of the Mitzva (commandment) be recognized, but there are also reasons why the beautification being recognized is unnecessary.

See Part 2 here.

Why is Chanuka (Hanukkah) Eight Days Long?

There is the view that I will call the Gemara's view and there is the view that I will call the Josephus view. In order to discuss this idea in detail I must first give some background by discussing each view in detail.

The Gemara's view is the more popular view that is told to every Jewish child (Shabbos 21b):

What is [the reason of] Hanukkah? For our Rabbis taught: On the twenty-fifth of Kislew[commence] the days of Hanukkah, which are eight on which a lamentation for the dead and fasting are forbidden. For when the Greeks entered the Temple, they defiled all the oils therein, and when the Hasmonean dynasty prevailed against and defeated them, they made search and found only one cruse of oil which lay with the seal of the High Priest, but which contained sufficient for one day's lighting only; yet a miracle was wrought therein and they lit [the lamp] therewith for eight days. The following year these [days] were appointed a Festival with [the recital of] Hallel and thanksgiving.

This idea is fairly simple, we are celebrating a miracle that occurred. Sure, it was the re-dedication of the temple, but the main reason the holiday exists, especially for eight days, is because of the OPEN miracle, of the oil lasting longer than physics allows, that occurred. This is why we celebrate this specific victory over the "Greeks" (Seleucid Syrians) and not our other victories of war.

Jospehus' view is a little different. Josephus tells us a story that is a little more detailed than the Gemara's account (Antiquities 12:7):
6. When therefore the generals of Antiochus's armies had been beaten so often, Judas assembled the people together, and told them, that after these many victories which God had given them, they ought to go up to Jerusalem, and purify the temple, and offer the appointed sacrifices. But as soon as he, with the whole multitude, was come to Jerusalem, and found the temple deserted, and its gates burnt down, and plants growing in the temple of their own accord, on account of its desertion, he and those that were with him began to lament, and were quite confounded at the sight of the temple; so he chose out some of his soldiers, and gave them order to fight against those guards that were in the citadel, until he should have purified the temple. When therefore he had carefully purged it, and had brought in new vessels, the candlestick, the table [of shew-bread], and the altar [of incense], which were made of gold, he hung up the veils at the gates, and added doors to them. He also took down the altar [of burnt-offering], and built a new one of stones that he gathered together, and not of such as were hewn with iron tools. So on the five and twentieth day of the month Casleu, which the Macedonians call Apeliens, they lighted the lamps that were on the candlestick, and offered incense upon the altar [of incense], and laid the loaves upon the table [of shew-bread], and offered burnt-offerings upon the new altar [of burnt-offering]. Now it so fell out, that these things were done on the very same day on which their Divine worship had fallen off, and was reduced to a profane and common use, after three years' time; for so it was, that the temple was made desolate by Antiochus, and so continued for three years. This desolation happened to the temple in the hundred forty and fifth year (of the Seleucid era 168/7 BCE), on the twenty-fifth day of the month Apeliens, and on the hundred fifty and third olympiad: but it was dedicated anew, on the same day, the twenty-fifth of the month Apeliens, on the hundred and forty-eighth year (165/4 BCE), and on the hundred and fifty-fourth olympiad. And this desolation came to pass according to the prophecy of Daniel, which was given four hundred and eight years before; for he declared that the Macedonians would dissolve that worship [for some time]. 

7. 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. 

Josephus, living about 200 years after these events, says that he THOUGHT the reason we celebrated this holiday was because of the amazing victory granted. The ability for the Jewish people to regain their independence in the face of overwhelming odds. He does not mention a miracle of the light lasting eight days even though it was only physically able to last for one. Why is this? Josephus, as we are told time and again, was part of the Pharisee camp. If he had this tradition, that the Gemara mentions, why doesn't he mention it? Why does he have to suppose that the reason for the holiday was because of the overwhelming victories of war? Josephus seems to think that the reason we celebrate eight days is, simply put, because that was the allotted time for the original festival when Judah HaMaccabe re-dedicated the temple. He rebuilt the altar, the Menorah and all the other vessels of worship since the Temple had been desolate for three years.

Also, if one looks at the prayer Al-Hanissim, we are thanking G-D for everything that Josephus describes without a single mention of the miracle of one day of oil lasting eight days. Why is that?

So, apparently there are two theories as to why we celebrate eight days of Chanukah. The first is the Gemara theory, the miracle of one day of oil lasting eight. The second theory is because Judah proclaimed a feast of eight days and they decided to celebrate this amazing victory which had reversed three years of desolation in the Temple.

I also think it is necessary to explain why Judah would have proclaimed a feast of eight days when rededicating the Temple. The Temple had been desolate for three years and none of the holidays had been observed for these three years. The first thing done by Judah was to rebuild all of the vessels of the Temple and put them to use. What holiday had just been missed? Succos, the festival of booths. How long is this holiday? 8 days! Judah was most probably celebrating the festival of Succos (Sukkot) and this would be why we celebrate eight days of Chanukah, according to this theory.

It is also noteworthy to mention that the Josephus version is also verified by the version In Maccabees 1 (Chapter 4):

41 Judas then ordered his men to keep the Citadel garrison engaged until he had purified the sanctuary.

42 Next, he selected priests who were blameless and zealous for the Law

43 to purify the sanctuary and remove the stones of the 'Pollution' to some unclean place.

44 They discussed what should be done about the altar of burnt offering which had been profaned,

45 and very properly decided to pull it down, rather than later be embarrassed about it since it had been defiled by the gentiles. They therefore demolished it

46 and deposited the stones in a suitable place on the hill of the Dwelling to await the appearance of a prophet who should give a ruling about them.

47 They took unhewn stones, as the Law prescribed, and built a new altar on the lines of the old one.

48 They restored the Holy Place and the interior of the Dwelling, and purified the courts.

49 They made new sacred vessels, and brought the lamp-stand, the altar of incense, and the table into the Temple.

50 They burned incense on the altar and lit the lamps on the lamp-stand, and these shone inside the Temple.

51 They placed the loaves on the table and hung the curtains and completed all the tasks they had undertaken.

52 On the twenty-fifth of the ninth month, Chislev, in the year 148 they rose at dawn

53 and offered a lawful sacrifice on the new altar of burnt offering which they had made.

54 The altar was dedicated, to the sound of hymns, zithers, lyres and cymbals, at the same time of year and on the same day on which the gentiles had originally profaned it.

55 The whole people fell prostrate in adoration and then praised Heaven who had granted them success.

56 For eight days they celebrated the dedication of the altar, joyfully offering burnt offerings, communion and thanksgiving sacrifices.

57 They ornamented the front of the Temple with crowns and bosses of gold, renovated the gates and storerooms, providing the latter with doors.

58 There was no end to the rejoicing among the people, since the disgrace inflicted by the gentiles had been effaced.

59 Judas, with his brothers and the whole assembly of Israel, made it a law that the days of the dedication of the altar should be celebrated yearly at the proper season, for eight days beginning on the twenty-fifth of the month of Chislev, with rejoicing and gladness.

Could it be that the Rabbis, when saying one day of oil lasted eight days, were really telling us something much deeper? Perhaps they were hinting at the idea that the Jewish people had a spiritual revolution at that time. Up until the victory of Judah and the re-dedication of the Temple the people were not observing the commandments. The Seleucid Greeks had outlawed circumcision and other laws of the Torah. Perhaps the Rabbis were telling us of the miracle that Mattisyahu and his sons were able to uplift the Jewish people from non-observant and transformed them into people that had complete faith in G-D. Perhaps this is why, during the time of Hasmonean rule, the Pharisees controled the will of the masses. Everyone, except for the aristocracy, believed the Rabbis led the true form of Judaism. This was not true in the time of the Seleucid Greeks, most people were not observant and followed the ban on circumcision and other anti-Torah rules.

The most moving part about this whole story seems like something straight out of a movie. The speech given by Judah Hamaccabee preceding one of the final battles before the re-dedication of the Temple. Josepus tells us (Antiquities 12:7):

3. Upon this Lysias chose Ptolemy, the son of Dorymenes, and Nicanor, and Gorgias, very potent men among the king's friends, and delivered to them forty thousand foot soldiers, and seven thousand horsemen, and sent them against Judea, who came as far as the city Emmaus, and pitched their camp in the plain country. There came also to them auxiliaries out of Syria, and the country round about; as also many of the runagate Jews. And besides these came some merchants to buy those that should be carried captives, (having bonds with them to bind those that should be made prisoners,) with that silver and gold which they were to pay for their price. And when Judas saw their camp, and how numerous their enemies were, he persuaded his own soldiers to be of good courage, and exhorted them to place their hopes of victory in God, and to make supplication to him, according to the custom of their country, clothed in sackcloth; and to show what was their usual habit of supplication in the greatest dangers, and thereby to prevail with God to grant you the victory over your enemies. So he set them in their ancient order of battle used by their forefathers, under their captains of thousands, and other officers, and dismissed such as were newly married, as well as those that had newly gained possessions, that they might not fight in a cowardly manner, out of an inordinate love of life, in order to enjoy those blessings. When he had thus disposed his soldiers, he encouraged them to fight by the following speech, which he made to them: "O my fellow soldiers, no other time remains more opportune than the present for courage and contempt of dangers; for if you now fight manfully, you may recover your liberty, which, as it is a thing of itself agreeable to all men, so it proves to be to us much more desirable, by its affording us the liberty of worshipping God. Since therefore you are in such circumstances at present, you must either recover that liberty, and so regain a happy and blessed way of living, which is that according to our laws, and the customs of our country, or to submit to the most opprobrious sufferings; nor will any seed of your nation remain if you be beat in this battle. Fight therefore manfully; and suppose that you must die, though you do not fight; but believe, that besides such glorious rewards as those of the liberty of your country, of your laws, of your religion, you shall then obtain everlasting glory. Prepare yourselves, therefore, and put yourselves into such an agreeable posture, that you may be ready to fight with the enemy as soon as it is day tomorrow morning." 

Judah tells his men that they are fighting for freedom to worship G-D. It is Judah's ultimate passion for G-D and desire to serve Him that allows Judah to give courage to his army. This speech from Judah can shine light on what the Gemara could be trying to tell us when it says that the miracle was the light that was supposed to last for one day lasted for eight. The Rabbis are talking about the Jewish people's spiritual level. In Judaism the number eight signifies a holy and spiritual existence. The world was made in seven days, seven signifying physicality as the Maharal and others tell us in several places. However, eight represents a spiritual level. The miracle of Chanukah is that the Jewish people, despite having their laws outlawed and worshiping their G-D being punishable, came back to strict observance of their religion. One man and his family were able to conduct this spiritual revival.

Whether the miracle of the one day becoming eight happened or not is not for me to say. The Rabbis might be talking literally or not. For this, one needs to look up Rav Avraham Ben Harambam's discussion on the matter. What is important is the underlying reality of the holiday. The Jewish people were thought to have been lost. Their temple defiled and desolate, their people were not keeping the laws and all seemed hopeless. However, looks may be deceiving and through this tragedy an even stronger Jewish people were re-born.

I hope the message of Chanukah and the eight days length is clear. The idea here is hope and optimism. Judah never gave up hope and he was able to bring back the Jewish people from the brink of destruction. His faith in G-D brought the masses back to the worship of G-D. His army, however small, was able to fight off an enormous adversary because of their beliefs. A Jew must never give up hope or faith. A hopeless situation may lead to an extraordinary turn of events. This was true of Purim and it is definitely true of Chanukah.

UPDATE********
This idea is talked about in the Aruch Hashulchan Orech Chaim 670:5. I did not make it up and he says it.