|
Yosé ben-Yo'ezer from Tzeredah and Yosé ben-Yoĥanan from Jerusalem received [the tradition] from them. Yosé ben-Yo'ezer from Tzeredah says: Let your house be a meeting place for the sages, get yourself dusty from the dust of their feet, and thirstily drink in their words.
4:
Yosé ben-Yo'ezer was a priest. Possibly his immediate antecedents had been among those Sadducees who had joined the Pharisaic movement a generation previously. His biography, as we shall see further on, certainly would suggest that this might be quite likely. If this is indeed the case then the tenor of the teaching attributed to him in our present mishnah shows how wholeheartedly he and his colleagues had adapted themselves into Pharisaic society and teaching.
5:
Apparently, up to the time of the Zugot – the Pairs – there had more or less been unanimity among the sages as to what the halakhah should be in any given case. However, quite clearly, the strains of a dual leadership (which reflected a dual membership in general) now required a much more flexible attitude to halakhah: each side agreed to respect the traditions of the other. This liberal attitude was to develop constantly throughout the Tannaïtic period, for the next 350 years. Indeed, within little more than a century we find that this mutual respect and tolerance reached such heights that the two schools were able to accept halakhic differences even in the most crucial and intimate of matters: marriage and divorce. For in the Mishnah [Yevamot 1:4] we are given a list of substantial differences between the two schools – differences that in a later age each would have declared that the womenfolk of the other school were not eligible for marriage! And yet, the mishnah continues:
Even though each school permitted and prohibited [marriages] differently, the School of Shammai did not refrain from marrying women from the School of Hillel, nor did the School of Hillel refrain from marrying women from the School of Shammai.
6:
The Mishnah [Ĥagigah 2:2] tells us that the very first maĥloket [difference of halakhic opinion] dates back to the dual leadership of Yosé ben-Yo'ezer and Yosé ben-Yoĥanan. It concerns the manner of designating an offering in the Bet Mikdash. When an individual brought an animal to the Bet Mikdash as a personal offering it was considered necessary to designate the animal by placing one's hands on the animal's head before handing it over to the priests for slaughter. This designation indicated a kind of 'spiritual' identity between the person offering and the animal offered. This act of designation was called semikhah [laying hands]. While there was agreement between the sages that it was permissible to make a personal offering on a festival, they disagreed as to whether the ceremony of semikhah could be performed on a festival. In his commentary on Mishnah Ĥagigah 2:2, Rabbi Ovadya of Bertinoro explains that the school that objected to the laying of hands on Yom Tov held that since the hands had to be laid on the animal's head with considerable pressure this was tantamount to making use of the animal, which is forbidden on a festival. The other school, obviously, disagreed.
Yosé ben-Yo'ezer says that hands should be laid, Yosé ben-Yoĥanan says that hands should not be laid…
This same mishnah then reports that this same maĥloket persisted through the next four generations of the dual leadership and was not yet resolved even in the time of the last of the zugot, Hillel and Shammai.
To be continued.
In response to a query from Jacob Chinitz I quoted Rambam concerning the framework of the blessings:
In the Laws of Reciting the Shema 1:7, Rambam states: "These benedictions, together with all the other benedictions in general use among Jews … nobody may subtract from them or add to them. Where it has been instituted to end [the benediction] with "Barukh" or not to do so, we may not do otherwise … the general rule is that anyone who deviates from the template instituted by the sages as regards benedictions is in error, and must recite the benediction once again according to the template".
Amnon Ronel writes:
In which case the example which he gives for the template of blessings is not just a "general framework" as you say, but an exact wording: here one must say "Blessed are You…" and here it is forbidden to add "Blessed are You…" Even if Rambam's requirement not to deviate from the template of blessings was not maintained through the ages his intention in the expression "template of blessings" is quite clear.
I respond:
Not so! The misunderstanding is caused by me and not by Rambam. Rambam is quoting a mishnah [Berakhot 1:4] –
In the morning two blessings are to be made before it [the Shema] and one after it; in the evening there are two before it and two after it – one long and one short. Where they determined that it should be long one may not make it short, where short one may not make it long. Where [they determined] it should be concluded one may not refrain from concluding it, and vice-versa.
The idea is that the reading of the Shema must be preceded by two blessings. ("Long" is explained as meaning that the blessing must both start and end with the formula "blessed are You…", whereas "short" means that it only concludes with this formula.) This framework is maintained to this day. But, the content of the blessings – apart from the starting and concluding formula – is not prescribed. Here, for instance, is the first blessing before reading the Shema on Shabbat eve as proposed by Rabbi Sa'adya Ga'on [882-942 CE]. You can compare it with the 'received' text for this blessing in our modern prayerbooks. The opening and closing formulas, which may not be changed are printed here in black:
Blessed are You, Lord our God, King of the Universe, who concluded His deeds on the seventh day, called it a delight, His holy Sabbath from evening to evening. He instituted rest for His people Israel. At His pleasure He rolls light away from darkness and darkness away from light. Blessed are You, Lord, Who brings on the evening.
|
