Sefer Ha-Bloggadah: week 26

This week: the two most outstanding second-generation tannaim (rabbis of the Mishnah).

• Monday - 2:1:87-91 (R. Eliezer [the Elder] ben Hyrcanus)
• Tuesday - 2:1:92-98 (R. Eliezer [the Elder] ben Hyrcanus)
• Wednesday - 2:1:99-103 (R. Eliezer [the Elder] ben Hyrcanus)
• Thursday - 2:1:104-113 (R. Joshua ben Hananiah)
• Friday - 2:1:114-119 (R. Joshua ben Hananiah)
• Saturday/Sunday - 2:1:120-125 (R. Joshua ben Hananiah)

2:1:73 in Iraq

This blog post from a couple years ago addresses the story of Rabban Gamliel and Rabbi Yehoshua... and Saddam Hussein.

2:1:75 Editing of Sefer HaAggada - Did Bialik & Ravnitzky Reverse the Conclusion of the Gemara?

This long account, or series of incidents, involving Rabban Gamliel and, particularly, his disputes with R' Yehoshua is fascinating in many ways.

One involves the editing of Sefer HaAggada. In the middle of this account, the text mentions the liberalization of Rabban Gamliel's rule that scholars would not be allowed to enter the bet midrash unless their internal character was consistent with their outward appearance. Then the account mentions a dream that Rabban Gamliel had. Our text says, roughly, as follows: "Rabban Gamliel had second thoughts. He said, 'Perhaps, God forbid, I have withheld Torah from Israel. [At this point, the Hebrew text has an ellipsis, though there is no break in the text as it appears in b. Brachot 28a.] They showed him in a dream white jugs filled with ashes." In Sefer HaAggada, there's an ellipsis here, and the text then moves on to another incident.

The image of white jugs filled with ashes is understood as a metaphor for students whose appealing exterior (white ceramic) was belied by their inside character (gray ash). It seems that Rabban Gamliel is being told that his stringent admissions criteria were justified, and that people being admitted under the new rules really were not appropriate -- he had not withheld Torah from Israel.

The problem is that, what follows in the Gemara, where the Sefer HaAggada has an ellipsis, is the following: "No, that's not the case; it was just to settle his mind that they showed him this." (Soncino: "This, however, really meant nothing; he was only shown this to appease him.") It seems that the Gemara's conclusion is that Rabban Gamliel was unjustified, and the liberalization was proper. Bialik and Ravnitsky could easily have included this extra line in their text; why did they omit it?

Sefer Ha-Bloggadah: week 25

The Yavneh generation, immediately following the destruction.

• Monday - 2:1:51-54 (Rabban Yohanan ben Zakkai)
• Tuesday - 2:1:55-60 (R. Dosa ben Harkinas; R. Hanina ben Dosa)
• Wednesday - 2:1:61-68 (R. Hanina ben Dosa)
• Thursday -2:1:69-74 (Rabban Gamliel II)
• Friday - 2:1:75-76 (Rabban Gamliel II)
• Saturday/Sunday - 2:1:77-86 (Rabban Gamliel II)

2:1:50 - The Benefits of a Good Fight

R. Ulla said: Rabban Yochanan ben Zekkai spent eighteen years in Arav and only two inquiries on matters of law came before him. So he said: 'Galilee, O Galilee, you have no sue for the Torah. In the end you will have to cope with malfeasants.

One might have thought the opposite. Arav was such a peaceful place, where all its residents were so wise and learned, that they just never had disputes. They worked everything out, only needing to consult R. Yochana ben Zakkai about once a decade to resolve problems.

But this aggadah does not go in that direction. It takes the lack of disputes as a bad thing, not a good thing. The reason, I think, is that the rabbis presupposed that any serious engagement with Judaism results in conflicts. There is no way around it. And so the lack of conflict does not mean wisdom and peacefulness; it means people are not engaging in Judaism.

The same is true in politics. When President Bush was campaigning in 2000, he argued that he would be bipartisan. When President Obama was campaigning in 2008, he argued the same thing. I think R. YBZ would have disapproved of both messages. There certainly are bi-partisan laws, but most of those are easy. Everyone agrees that murder and stealing should be illegal. Those easily pass.

The challenge of governing is finding the laws that not everyone agrees with, making the case they are good ideas, and moving society in that direction. Politicians are partisan because that have different visions of how to govern and what they would like to accomplish. And that flows from the complexity of life, not from being mean or petty.

In contemporary Judaism, we have the same thing. Orthodox, Conservative, Reform, Reconstructionist, and serious non-denominational or post-denominational Jews have
very different visions of Judaism. But that is because they take it seriously, and Judaism and modernity are complicated and interact is complicated ways. The fact that we have these ideological divides is a good sign, not a bad sign.

Dissention in the ranks

In two of the midrashim about Beit Shammai and Beit Hillel, and in one of the midrashim about Jonathan ben Uzziel, we are directed to consider the role of disagreement among the learned in matters of halachah.

Today, it is usual in the rightward end of the Jewish community to brook no disagreement, to ignore the great tradition we have of multiple views and multiple voices. The rabbis were not unaware of such tendencies in our community. Although the oven of Achnai is often trotted out as a parable of how we have the power to write the Torah in our ow image and God laughs, in fact, if read properly from the very beginning to the very end of the sugiya, it becomes clear that the point is actually a critique of the tyranny of the majority.
Here the tack is slightly different. While the first of the beit hillel and beit shammai midrashim clearly criticizes those who are not sufficiently learned interpreting Torah (because it creates multiple opinions, and thus "two Torahs" - which is problematic because one cannot live by two non-consonant sets of rules) the following two midrashim are also clear in their criticism of those who allow the disagreements between the learned who study for the sake of heaven to separate the community. in one, beit Hillel is preferred because in teaching, they preserve both sets of rulings, presenting the opponent's rulings first, and doing so in a pleasant manner. In the second, the fact that they continued to marry one another, a point which might be well taken by certain factions who go out of their way to annul conversions of Jews they don't care for (anyone other than themselves, mostly) and judge their children not Jewish - completely contrary to halacha. The entire point of mentioning that beit Shammai and Beit hillel continued to marry each other is to point out that in the one most clear example of where differences must come to the fore, they found ways to make their community one.
This fits well with the second of the midrashim about Jonathan ben Uzziel, in which he teaches the deepest secrets of the Torah, to the extent that God protests - and Jonathan ben Uzziel answers that he did it so that dissention would not increase in Israel. Ben Uzziel wants to say that by revealing the deepest secrets of the Torah, Jews will know "the truth" and so will not have multiple opinions, nor be wrong in their interpretation, but God stops him, saying that humans may not know all that is in the Torah - we cannot know the time of the messiah's forecoming. I suggest that this is actually a hint from God that in fat, while dissension is not to be valued, disagreement is. If we know all, then we are not longer engaged in relationship with God - we have lost something precious. Pure knowledge i not always, in itself, the most valuable thing - and unity of thought is not necessarily what God wishes from us - even when it is unity in pursuit of God's desire that drives us.

It's them

In the course of his remarks, he was moved to chide the people of Jerusalem, saying, "Who brought it about that I have come from Babylonia and have been made patriarch over you? It was your own indolence--you did not minister to the two notables of the generation, Shemaiah and Avtalion, who dwelled in your very midst." No sooner did he rebuke them than the answer to a question in Halakhah was hidden from him, so that when they asked him, "Master, what is the rule if a man forgot to bring in a knife on the eve of the Sabbath?" he had to reply, "I have heard the answer to this question but forgotten it. But depend on the people of Israel: if they themselves are not prophets, they are the children of prophets!" Indeed, the next day, one whose Passover offering was a lamb stuck the knife in its wool; one whose Passover offering was a goat tied the knife between its horns. When Hillel saw what was being done, he recollected the Halakhah and said, "What these men are doing is in line with the tradition I received from the mouths of Shemaiah and Avtalion."

I find this fascinating. It reminds me of the reason that Eliyahu must attend every bris and seder, he criticized the people Israel. It was a punishment not a blessing.

Here Hillel, the kind, the one renowned for not showing anger or annoyance, is the one punished for attacking the people of Jerusalem. Critiquing a group as if all are guilty of some sin is something we do all the time. It's the media, no it's the evangelicals, no it's the Jews, no it's the "other,", etc. This is much easier than arguing issues or trying to teach.

The result is fascinating, Hillel forgets some Torah and is taught the halachah by the very people he has criticized. Let the punishment fit the crime.