מתני': ואלו מן ההלכות שאמרו בעלית חנניה בן חזקיה בן גריון כשעלו לבקרו. נמנו ורבו בית שמאי על בית הלל, ושמונה עשר דברים גזרו בו ביום:
גמ': אותו היום היה קשה לישראל כיום שנעשה בו העגל... תנא ר' יהושע אונייא תלמידי ב"ש עמדו להן מלמטה והיו הורגין בתלמידי ב"ה. תני ששה מהן עלו והשאר עמדו עליהן בחרבות וברמחים. תני שמונה עשרה דבר גזרו ובשמונה עשרה רבו
Mishna: These are the laws they said in the attic of Hanania ben Hizkiya ben Gurion, when they went in to visit him. They voted and Beit Shammai was the majority over Beit Hillel, and they decreed eighteen things in that day.
Gemara: That day was as hard for Israel as the day the golden calf was made... Rabbi Joshua Onaya taught: The students of Beit Shammai stood at the bottom [of the stairs], and they killed the students of Beit Hillel. It was taught: Six of them went up [to the attic], and the rest of them attacked them with spears and swords. It was taught: For eighteen things they decreed, and in eighteen they were the majority.
It's a shocking story. But one that is difficult to take literally. Why would a vote done under duress count? If this story was believed to be literally true, why does the Mishna count it as authoritative? Why does the Talmud accept these 18 laws all as valid votes for Beit Shammai, even long after that event took place? Why is Beit Shammai ever considered a valid school of Judaism if they were murderers? Why particularly for these 18, and never again (as some have pointed out, most are minutae cases regarding purity and impurity)? And we have traditions throughout the Talmud of the members of Beit Shammai and Beit Hillel actually getting along well, see the end of the first chapter of Yevamot that they would marry off to each other, and there was much friendship there! And what does the comparison to the golden calf have anything to do with this?
Let's start with the common commentaries to the Jerusalem Talmud, found on the side of the page. The Korban HaEda writes:
והיו הורגין בתלמידי הלל - אילו היו רוצין לעלות אבל ח"ו לא הרגו אותן נ"ל: ששה - מתלמידי הלל עלו לביה"מ: והשאר עמדו - תלמידי ב"ש מלמט' בחרבות וברמחים ולא הניחו לעלות כדי שהם יהיו הרוב.
They killed the students of Beit Hillel - [Only] if they wanted to go up [to the attic], but God forbid that they actually killed them. Six - Of the students of Beit Hillel went to the study room [in the attic]. And the rest of them stood - Of the students of Beit Shammai, they stood at the bottom with spears and swords, and they didn't let them go up so that they would be the majority.God forbid that Beit Shammai were murderers, rather they were just mafia types which fixed the voting. The Korban HaEda is actually picking up on an extra word, "והיו", and interpreting that to mean that they would have if they had to. But this does not help Beit Shammai all that much, and doesn't answer any of the questions above.
The Amudei Yerushalayim, a commentary in the back of my edition of the Jerusalem Talmud, quotes Rav Saadya Gaon as being attacked by Karaites (I've read supposedly Salmon ben Yeruham, as can be seen in Likueti Kadmaniot) because of this story in the Talmud, and Rav Saadya denies its existence:
ונ"ל סעד לדבריו מדברי רס"ג שכתב ע"ד הקראים שכתבו שהיה הריגה בין בית שמאי ובית הלל, ורב סעדיה כתב שלא נמצא כן בתלמוד, וע"ז השיבו הקראים דמבואר כן בירושלמי, אולם לפי פירוש הק"ע א"ש דברי ר' סעדיה.
It seems to me a support for [the Korban HaEda] from what Rav Saadya Gaon wrote against the opinion of the Karaites who wrote about the murders of Beit Shammai and Beit Hillel, and Rav Saadia wrote that that does not exist in the Talmud. On this the Karaites responded that it is explained in the Jerusalem Talmud. But according to the Korban HaEda's interpretation, Rav Saadya is correct.It is clear that some took the story quite literally. The Meiri on Avodah Zara 35b seems to have no qualms taking the story as having literally happened. This is in the context of quoting the Talmud later on there that says that these 18 laws will never be repealed because lives were lost over them (although interestingly, his version is that both had losses in that described violence). Indeed, Rabbi Saul Lieberman states in Yerushalmi Kepshuto (page 38) that it is impossible to explain away this story as not being literal, since that concept in the Talmud that these enactments will never be repealed relies on that.
But are there any parallels elsewhere for such a strange story? If this was true, a real murder story, surely it should have been discussed in other places? One such place might have been in Bavli Shabbat 17a:
הבוצר לגת. שמאי אומר, הוכשר. הלל אומר, לא הוכשר. א''ל הלל לשמאי, מפני מה בוצרין בטהרה ואין מוסקין בטהרה? א''ל, אם תקניטני, גוזרני טומאה אף על המסיקה. נעצו חרב בבית המדרש אמרו הנכנס יכנס והיוצא אל יצא ואותו היום היה הלל כפוף ויושב לפני שמאי כאחד מן התלמידים והיה קשה לישראל כיום שנעשה בו העגל וגזור שמאי והלל ולא קבלו מינייהו ואתו תלמידייהו גזור וקבלו מינייהו
When one vintages [grapes] for the vat [to manufacture wine], Shammai maintains: It is made fit (to become unclean]; while Hillel ruled, It is not made fit. Said Hillel to Shammai: Why must one vintage [grapes] in purity, yet not gather [olives] in purity? If you provoke me, he replied, I will decree uncleanness in the case of olive gathering too. A sword was planted in the Beth Hamidrash and it was proclaimed, 'He who would enter, let him enter, but he who would depart, let him not depart!' And on that day Hillel sat submissive before Shammai, like one of the disciples. And it was as grievous to Israel as the day when the [golden] calf was made. Now, Shammai and Hillel enacted [this measure], but they would not accept it from them; but their disciples came and enacted it, and it was accepted from them.Some interesting similarities, some interesting differences. An argument breaks about between Shammai and Hillel themselves, at what point are grapes able to become considered impure? They argue back and forth, and a sword is planted in the study house, and all are warned not to leave. The "or else" is left unstated. So there was some threatening with a sword, but it had nothing to do with fixing the vote, in fact it was to make the vote more fair by making sure everyone voted, it seems. Another similarity is the appearance again of, "It was as bad for Israel as the day they made the golden calf." There was some later debate of whether to accept that vote, but eventually both sides made peace with it.
A very different story, however! What are we to make of all of this?
A Fast Day In Commemoration?
There is evidence that we make a halachicly mandated fast day out of this event. Something must have happened, huh? See the Tur O"C 580:
כתב בה"ג: אלו הימים שמתענין בהם מן התורה והמתענה לא יאכל בהם ולא ישתה עד הערב:באחד בניסן מתו בני אהרן. בי' בו מתה מרים, ונסתלק הבאר. בכ"ו בו מת יהושע בן נון. בי' באייר מת עלי הכהן ושני בניו, ונשבה ארון הברית... בז' באדר מת משה רבינו עליו השלום. בט' בו גזרו תענית על שנחלקו בית שמאי ובית הלל זה על זה. אלו ימי תעניות קבלו ישראל מן התורה. ועוד גזרו רז"ל שיהו מתענין מפני שלשה דברים שני וחמישי: על חורבן הבית, ועל התורה שנשרפה, ועל חרפת השם. ולעתיד לבא, הקדוש ברוך הוא עתיד להפכם לששון ולשמחה, דכתיב (ירמיהו לא יב): "והפכתי אבלם לששון ונחמתים, ושמחתים מיגונם" וכן יהי רצון במהרה בימינו, אמן
See also the Shulchan Aruch, 580:7:
...בז' באדר מת משה רבינו עליו השלום. בט' נחלקו בית שמאי ובית הלל:
...בתשעה בו נחלקו בית שמאי ובית הלל, והיה הדבר קשה לישראל, וגזרו תענית על זה.
On the 9th, the houses of Shammai and Hillel argued, and it was a difficult thing for Israel, and they decreed a fast on that event.For the Aruch Hashulchan, there is a direct even that happened on that day, and he explicitly invokes our familiar line about the day being difficult for Israel, but without mentioning the golden calf.
So there was some specific day for this event, the 9th of Adar. The Levush fleshes this out a bit more:
בט' בו נחלקו ב״ש וב״ה זה על זה והואיל ונפלה מחלוקת בין חכמי ישראל אע״פ שמחלוקתם לש״ש הוא מ״מ נעשית התורה ח"ו כשתי תורות שזה אוסר וזה מתיר וזה מטמא וזה מטהר ואין יודעין שום דין על בוריו הרי הוא כיום צרה ומתענין בו
On the 9th of Adar, the houses of Shammai and Hillel argued against each other, and since an argument took place between the sages of Israel, even though their argument was for the sake of heaven [Avot 5:20), nevertheless, it was as if the Torah was made into two Torahs, God forbid, with this one saying, "Permitted," and this one saying, "Prohibited"; this one saying, "Pure", and this one saying, "Impure". And they could not decide the law, that day was a day of pain and we fast on it.According to the Levush, then, the problem was not that they argued, but that they wouldn't decide one side or another, and the rabbis said, we must fast over this travesty.
Finally, the earliest source seems to be Megillat Taanit, toward the end, which described the event as happening seeming on a literal level, and therefore there is the aforementioned fast.
I wonder if these sources can help us towards an answer. If not, it is interesting to see how important the debate really was in the history of the Talmud, that it was recorded by early rishonim as a fast day.
Towards An Understanding
Rav Moshe in Igrot Moshe, Orach Chaim 5:20 discusses our issue:
In a lengthy piece of which I only copied a part of, Rav Moshe can't make heads or tails of these gemaras, except to say that the Bavli Shabbat only means to say that by sticking a sword in the ground, they were saying, "This is important, as important as death!", which aroused the people to vote instead of arguing, and everyone had their voices heard.וראיתי בקה"ע לפי פירושו בירושלמי (שבת פרק א' ה"ד), ששישה מתלמידי ב"ה עלו לבית המדרש, והשאר - עמדו תלמידי ב"ש מלמטה בחרבות וברמחים, ולא הניחום לעלות, כדי שב"ש יהיו הרוב. והיו הורגין בתלמידי בית הלל אילו היו רוצין לעלות, אבל ח"ו לא הרגו. משמע מדבריו שרק מחמת שב"ה שמעו לאלו מב"ש שאמרו להם שלא יעלו, לכן לא הרגו. אבל אם לא היו רוצים אנשי ב"ה לשמוע להם, היו הורגין אותן. שזה וודאי הא אסור, וחייבין מיתה אם היו הורגין בהם, אף אם היו רשאין אנשי ב"ש לעשות כן, כגון כהא דגמ' דידן שהיו אומרין לאנשי ב"ה שיעלו ויתברר ההלכה כדין,וכ"ש שהיה אסור לאנשי ב"ש מלמנוע לאנשי ב"ה מלעלות ולומר דעתן, ולהכריע שיהיה הרוב כב"ה. אבל אף למאי דתנינן בגמ' דידן, שהחרב נעצו כדי שיעלו ויתברר הדין לאמתו, וכדאיתא בפי' הרמב"ם שנתקבץ שם קיבוץ גדול מתלמידי ב"ש וב"ה, ולא נשאר באותו הדור מי שהיה ראוי להוראה שלא היו באותו מעמד, נמי תמוה, איך שייך שיהרגו, שאין ע"ז חיוב מיתה. ולכן דברי הירושלמי צע״ג. ולשון גמ׳ דידן צריך לפרש שהנעיצת חרב היה רק להודיע חומר הדבר לברר הלכה, אף של דברי חכמים בגזירוהיהן ותקנותיהן, וכ״ש דברים שהן מדאורייתא, שכל אחד צריד לידע שהוא חמור כחייבי מיתות, אך שהתורה חסה ופטרה מחיוב מיתה. ועי״ז נתעוררו כל החכמים שהיו שם, לעלוה ולהישאר שם, עד שיעיינו כולן, ולהחליט כל אחד לפי דעתו וחכמתו...
I think the solution is to look at the golden calf story, and to determine why the Talmud in both the Bavli and the Yerushalmi both relate that story to the argument of Beit Shammai and Beit Hillel, and perhaps we can see what they are talking about. I have no illusions about answering the questions, but I can try to make sense of all this. Exodus 32:
The Golden Calf 32:1 Meanwhile, the people began to realize that Moses was taking a long time to come down from the mountain. They gathered around Aaron and said to him, 'Make us an oracle to lead us. We have no idea what happened to Moses, the man who brought us out of Egypt.' 32:2 'Take the rings off the ears of your wives and children,' replied Aaron. 'Bring them to me.' 32:3 All the people took off their earrings and brought them to Aaron. 32:4 He took [the rings] from the people, and had someone form [the gold] in a mold, casting it into a calf. [Some of the people began to] say, 'This, Israel, is your god, who brought you out of Egypt.' 32:5 When Aaron saw [this], he built an altar before [the calf]. Aaron made an announcement and said, 'Tomorrow, there will be a festival to God.' 32:6 Getting up early the next morning, [the people] sacrificed burnt offerings and brought peace offerings. The people sat down to eat and drink, and then got up to enjoy themselves. ...
I think it's possible that Aaron is representative of Beit Hillel. He is attacked by the people, representative of Beit Shammai, at the foot of the mountain, like at the foot of the stairs.
Moses Descends 32:15 Moses turned around, and began going down the mountain with the two Tablets of Testimony in his hand. They were tablets written on both sides, with the writing visible from either side. 32:16 The Tablets were made by God and written with God's script engraved on the Tablets. 32:17 Joshua heard the sound of the people rejoicing, and he said to Moses, 'It sounds as though there is a battle going on in the camp!' 32:18 'It is not the song of victory,' replied [Moses], 'nor the dirge of the defeated. What I hear is just a call of distress'. 32:19 As he approached the camp and saw the calf and the dancing, Moses displayed anger, and threw down the tablets that were in his hand, shattering them at the foot of the mountain. 32:20 He took the calf that the [people] had made, and burned it in fire, grinding it into fine powder. He then scattered it on the water, and made the Israelites drink it. 32:21 Moses said to Aaron, 'What did the people do to you, that you allowed them to commit such a great sin?' 32:22 'Do not be angry, my lord,' replied Aaron, 'but you must realize that the people have bad tendencies. 32:23 They said to me, 'Make an oracle to lead us, since we do not know what happened to Moses, the man who took us out of Egypt.' 32:24 When I responded to them, 'Who has gold?' they took it off and gave it to me. I threw the gold into the fire and the result was this calf.' 32:25 Moses realized that the people had actually been restrained. Aaron had restrained them, doing only a small part of what the outspoken ones [had demanded]. 32:26 Moses stood up at the camp's entrance and announced, 'Whoever is for God, join me!' All the Levites gathered around him. 32:27 He said to them, 'This is what God, Lord of Israel, says: Let each man put on his sword, and go from one gate to the other in the camp. Let each one kill [all those involved in the idolatory], even his own brother, close friend, or relative.' 32:28 The Levites did as Moses had ordered, and approximately 3000 people were killed that day. 32:29 Moses said, 'Today you can be ordained [as a tribe dedicated] to God with a special blessing. Men have [been willing to kill even] their own sons and brothers [at God's command].' 32:30 The next day, Moses said to the people, 'You have committed a terrible sin. Now I will go back up to God and try to gain atonement for your crime.' 32:31 Moses went back up to God, and he said, 'The people have committed a terrible sin by making a golden idol. 32:32 Now, if You would, please forgive their sin. If not, You can blot me out from the book that You have written.' 32:33 God replied to Moses, 'I will blot out from My book those who have sinned against Me. 32:34 Now go; you still have to lead the people to [the place] that I described to you. I will send My angel before you. Still, when I grant special providence to the people, I will take this sin of theirs into account.' 32:35 God then struck the people with a plague because of the calf that Aaron had made.
How do I know Aaron and Beit Hillel match up? Hillel uses Aaron as an example of someone to emulate, Avot 1:12:
הלל ושמאי קבלו מהם. הלל אומר, הוי מתלמידיו של אהרן, אוהב שלום ורודף שלום, אוהב את הבריות ומקרבן לתורה:
Hillel and Shammai received the tradition from them. Hillel would say, "Be like the students of Aaron, love peace and pursue peace, love all people and bring them close to Torah."What this indicates to me is that Hillel, and his followers, had a philosophy to always take the road less divisive, and they saw that in Aaron, their ideological ancestor. Where does Aaron display such an ideology. I say here, in the calf story. The people surround Aaron, and demand that he make them a god. He acquiesces. Why does he do that? Because he thought all the people, or even most people, wanted him to do this for them. If the majority of people wanted it, how could he say no? Then there would be war, bloodshed, disunity. What Aaron had to do to delay them was to get them all doing the same thing, feasting and giving gold, and then he could keep them unified. After all, the medrash tells us based on the Tower of Babel story that if the people are unified, God can't hurt them, such is the greatness of peace. Genesis Rabbah, 38:7:
רבי אומר גדול השלום שאפילו ישראל עובדים עבודה זרה, אבל שלום ביניהם, אומר הקב"ה איני יכול לפגוע בהם
Rabbi says, "Great is peace, for even if Israel bows down to idols, but there is peace amongst them, God says, as if, "I cannot touch them."So Aaron agreed to help him, and all went well. The people were seemingly content, and Aaron had staved off a civil war against the leaders.
But he was mistaken. The people who wanted the idol were few and far between, only 3000, according to the number that was killed in the end. It just seemed that way to Aaron. He was too quick to assess the situation, too quick to decided what the people wanted. Not only that, but it caused more fighting than it resolved! Moses comes down the mountain and has a strange conversation with Joshua. Joshua hears fighting, a civil war between the people loyal to Moses and God, and the people who were loyal to Aaron and the calf. Moses says they aren't fighting. Fighting requires a winner and a loser, he says. All he hears is disunity, unrest.
Moses then has a strange conversation with Aaron, who, if my interpretation is correct, said that he thought the whole people wanted it. When Moses saw what he had been trying to do, he was unhappy, but he understood.
But the people were divided. How does one fix that? Only by deciding, once and for all, "Who is with God?" Levi made that decision, and killed the traitors in their midst. A cruel fate, to be sure, but a necessary one at a time where greater war could have happened.
This is what happened with Beit Shammai and Beit Hillel. There were some things they just couldn't get a vote on. Nobody would decide, nobody would stay in the beit midrash, until Beit Hillel, Aaron's progenitors, decided to allow Beit Shammai their day. It was as if they had gone to war and died.
The turn of phrase which sounds like an all-out war occurred where Beit Hillel was lost mightily, is parallel to the Golden Calf story. And the Talmud often uses those terms for when Beit Hillel "gives in" to Beit Shammai. See Beitza 20a, where Hillel lies for the sake of peace to followers of Shammai. He pretends he was not bringing a sacrifice they felt was forbidden, so as not to fight. And by doing this, the Talmud states:
ואותו היום גברה ידם של בית שמאי על בית הלל ובקשו לקבוע הלכה כמותן
And on that day, Beit Shammai overpowered Beit Hillel and sought to establish the law like them [and not like Beit Hillel].In context, this is clearly in terms of Hillel's acquiescence above. And the resolution to this story is a vote.
History repeats itself. Aaron's problem was that he decided too fast, this will keep the people together, and he was wrong. Beit Hillel made the same mistake. We'll just give up, they said, you can have these laws for yourselves. It was as if they were forced to do it, as if there were swords against their necks, but they agreed to let Beit Shammai have the majority on that day. But it divided the people even more. Their immediate students didn't accept it, according to the Bavli, and it was only much later that the law was agreed.
The leaders of the generation have to decide very carefully, with much caution, where and when should we fight for what we believe in. The answer is not "Always", but it is also not, "Never". We need leaders who can see what might happen in the future from a compromise now, and what would happen if they don't.
I hope to see a day where the Jews are truly unified, b'mheira biyameinu,
ולעתיד לבא,
הקדוש ברוך הוא עתיד להפכם לששון ולשמחה, דכתיב (ירמיהו לא יב): "והפכתי
אבלם לששון ונחמתים, ושמחתים מיגונם" וכן יהי רצון במהרה בימינו, אמן
Interesting.
ReplyDelete3000 killed at the golden calf, 3000 of beis hillel killed (see the Lieberman link)
ReplyDeleteRight, but what's the connection?
Delete