Berakhot 011

Rabban Gamli'el as head of the Sanhedrin would be obliged to take the majority line of the ĥakhamim [sages]. If he did not, why bother determining halakhah there by democratic processes? Nevertheless, there is an apparent (not real) disagreement between him and the majority. Were a fellow Tanna [sage] to challenge this, results might be disastrous. A child, however out of place though, is allowed a measure of impertinence. By telling this event from Rabban Gamaliel's private life it is possible to make clear that he in fact agrees with the Sages and pushes their view as a fence [syag] around the actual curfew for reciting Shema.

I respond:

Firstly, Rabban Gamli'el did not see himself as obliged to toe the majority line! He was even (temporarily) deposed from the presidency of the Sanhedrin for insisting on his own view in another matter against that of Rabbi Yehoshu'a (which enjoyed the support of the majority). Rabban Gamli'el was a very authoritarian person. Secondly, while admitting the various meanings that the word 'child' can have, I think that we must assume that the sons of Rabban Gamli'el were grown men at the time of this incident; one of them was probably Rabban Shim'on ben-Gamli'el, who was eventually to succeed his father in the presidency. Thirdly, Rambam [Maimonides] in his Mishnah Commentary states that "the halakhah is according to Rabban Gamli'el" [and not the sages]. While it is true that his wording in Mishneh Torah [Ahavah, Hilkhot Keriat Shema 1:9] is equivocal, he leaves little doubt that the view of the sages is subordinate to that of Rabban Gamli'el. For these reasons I am unrepentant.

Richard Friedman writes on a related topic:

You suggest that the purpose of the ma'aseh [incident] is to demonstrate the force of the opinion of Rabban Gamli'el. Might it be that the purpose is to clarify the relationship between his and that of the ĥakhamim [sages]? In other words, might his sons really be asking him: "We know that the halakhah, as established by the Sages – contrary to your views – is that Shema must be said by midnight, and it's now after midnight; but did the Sages really agree in principle with you that b^eshokhb^ekha means 'while one is in bed,' and thus they merely 'put up a fence around the Torah,' so that, b'di'avad [having gone beyond the deadline], we still must say Shema? Or, did the sages really agree in principle with Rabbi Eli'ezer, that b^eshokhb^ekha means 'when one goes to bed,' but they had a different idea about when bedtime is, so that it's now past everyone's notion of when bedtime is, and there's no point in saying Shema now?" Then the response of Rabban Gamli'el is that the sages agreed with him in principle, so that b'di'avad, the sons must still say Shema.

I respond:

I am not convinced, but I cannot fault the reasoning. Could be.

Reuven Boxman writes, yet again on the same topic:

I have to take you task about the extraordinary steps you are taking to protect the good name of the sons of Rabban Gamli'el. A few months ago in shul, when discussing the ma'aseh referred to in this mishna, you indicated that the sons in question were at the celebration of some sort of mitzvah. Now you have them placed at a philosophical symposium, making witty speeches, on the basis of the context of the word mishteh. Now I can recall two occurrences of the word in the Tanakh [Bible]. The first is in Genesis, where Abraham throws a bash to celebrate the weaning of Isaac: perhaps all the participants sat around and discussed philosophy, but somehow or other I doubt it. The second occurrence I recall is in the Megillah, where Ahashverosh throws a bash for 7 days for all his ministers and servants, and all the residents of Shushan. I guess I always underrated Ahashverosh – previously I had always thought his mishteh was more of an orgy than a philosophical symposium. Clearly the vast quantities of 'royal wine' made the speeches wittier. Following the text, I had always thought that he invited Vashti to appear in order to show off her beauty. But I guess I was mistaken – she was clearly invited to make a witty speech, or perhaps clarify some obscure point of Persian or Median philosophy at Ahasheverosh's 7 day symposium. And finally we have the sons of Rabban Gamli'el, who apparently concentrated so hard on making witty speeches at the symposium, that they forgot to say Shema. Perish the thought that they were out carousing all night, and when they staggered home at long last, an agitated and worried Rabban Gamli'el laid down the law on them, and said you can't escape your obligations so easily – first say Shema and then go to bed!

I respond briefly:

Firstly, It could have been a wedding that they were at – but then why does not our mishnah say so? In similar cases it does so. Secondly, can we not distinguish between the various ages of the Hebrew language? Abraham would never have heard of the Greeks; Aĥashverosh certainly had – but they were his decadent mortal enemies! According to Rabbi Eli'ezer (Louis) Finklestein z"l, Rabban Gamli'el wanted to be accepted in 'high society' and may well have educated his sons accordingly. All this is surmise – both yours and mine! Let's both be repentant.