All who say, "On that day," that day was a decisive day in the sequence of the Toshabah.

From the Gift of the Desert – 2002

In the Blessings of the 28th, after describing the removal of the King from his presidency and the appointment of the Fourth in his place, we recite: "All who say 'on that day' are those who are to be remembered." Every place in the Shas where the phrase 'on that day' appears refers to the day of removal. We will try to clarify a little what the nature of that day is for which such a place is dedicated throughout the Shas.[1]

In the second generation of the Tannaim in Yavneh, a revolution of the utmost significance for the development of the Oral Torah took place. Notes from the event appear in several places in the Shas, usually in extremely dramatic descriptions (the furnace of an adversary in 19th century B.C., the overthrow of the Rebbe in Berakot 28, the death of the great Rebbe in the Sanhedrin 68 and 101, and the issue of Hagiga 3), but the historical and essential connection between them is not always apparent at first glance. The Torah is characterized by being poor in one place and rich in another, and therefore we will begin the discussion by examining a puzzling phenomenon in Pirkei Avot.

Chapter 1 of Tractate Avot describes the transmission of the Torah from Moses to Joshua, to the elders, etc. The process of transmission described in Chapter 1 ends with the fifth and final pair: Hillel and Shammai. From here on, various sayings are cited in the names of sages from different generations, until Chapter 2, Mishnah 9. There, the description of the process of transmission (or reception) of the Torah is surprisingly renewed with the words: "Rabbi Yochanan ben Zakkai received Hillel and Shammai." However, immediately afterwards, this process finally ends. In the following mishnah, we have already learned: "Rabbi Yochanan ben Zakkai had five students, and these were Rabbi Eliezer ben Hyrcanus and Rabbi Yehoshua ben Hananiah," etc.

Until the Rivaz, the process is described as a continuous reception of Torah: Moshe received…and delivered, Hillel and Shammai received from them. The process effectively stops at the end of Chapter 1, except for the Rivaz who is also described (separately, in the second part) as still receiving. From the Rivaz, the term ‘reception’ or ‘delivery’ no longer appears in the chapters of Avot in relation to the succession of the Torah. Even if there is a description of the succession of the Torah, as with the students of the Rivaz, it appears without a relation of reception from generation to generation. It is also worth noting that in the generation after the Rivaz there is no single prominent figure, or pair, as there was until then. The process is more massive, and each sage has several disciples.

Rivaz is considered, in the accepted view, to be the first generation of Tannaim. In his days the destruction occurred, and he, as is known, sought Yavneh and its sages. The generation that followed was that of R. G. Divnah, who served as president, R. A. ben Hyrcanus (R. A. the Great), R. G.'s brother-in-law, R. Yehoshua ben Hananiah, his friend and bar of the company, and with them R. Elazar ben Azariah, the younger of them, and R. A. ben Yosef, who was, as is known, older but still considered a student (initially of R. A. the Great, and finally of R. Yehoshua).

It seems that the change in terminology between the period reception From his student, for the period Learning The mass of students, most of them, reflects a significant process that Toshbap is undergoing in the first generation of Yavne (the second generation of Tannaim).

In the BM 19, another dramatic event is described in which Rabbi Yehoshua and Rabbi Eliezer the Great disagree on the law of the impurity of a kiln of slag (Akhnai's kiln).

 Tanna, on that day, Rabbi Eliezer answered all the answers in the world, but they did not receive any from him. He told them that if the law is as good as my carob, this will prove it.…The water well will prove…The walls of the synagogue will prove…A voice came out and said, "What do you have to do with Eliezer, my son, who walks like him everywhere?" Rabbi Yehoshua stood up and said, "She is not in heaven."… We do not observe the voice of the Lord, which you already wrote on Mount Sinai in the Torah, 'After many, to incline.'

First, we note that the term "on that day" appears here. It seems that the intention is not on the day of the Alma discussion, but that this is indeed "the same day" on which the Rabbi was removed from the presidency. And evidence is that in Tractate Berchot Ita, all Tractate Idiyot are repeated with "that day," and in Tractate Idiyot 7:47 it is explicitly stated, "They testified about a furnace that cut chulia that gave sand between chulia that is impure, which the Rabbi cleanses."

To understand the depth of the drama that took place on "that day," one must note that the great Rabbi consistently represents the approach that holds that the entire Torah is tradition, and we will illustrate this in a nutshell. In Sukkah 28, Rabbi testifies to himself that he never said anything that he did not hear from his rabbi. There, in Pirkei Avot, the Rabbi praised Rabbi as "a secret keeper who does not lose a drop." He also testified to himself that "if all the days were sufficient, and all the quills were pens, and all the people were illiterate, they could not write all that I have read and recited" (Adran 25, and also Sanhedrin 67-68 and 11), as well as many other examples. Rabbi was a tremendous repository of the teachings of his rabbis, and everything he said was in their name. His teachings were the teachings of tradition, of Kabbalah.

In the debate in the BM about Aknai's oven, the Rabbi brings evidence that is seemingly irrelevant. A carob tree, a spring of water, a female voice, etc. The Rabbi tries to prove that he is authoritative, and not to prove the actual law, that is, that the content of his words is true. For the Rabbi, the law is determined by his reliability as the bearer of the teachings of his rabbis, and therefore he tries to prove that he is a worthy 'channel', and therefore he must be believed that he received this from his rabbis. Therefore, the proofs are not on the level of relevance. All the evidence in the world that the Rabbi brought that day, before the 'mystical' phase of the discussion began, was probably brought from the words of his rabbis.

But Rabbi Yehoshua, his friend and Bar-e-Plugatiah Dr. A., disagreed with him on this very issue. He claimed that the law is determined by reason: 'It is not in the heavens.' And if there is no decision by intellectual persuasion, then one counts and votes and follows the majority: 'After many to incline.' To this the Blessed One said, as described there later: "Conquer me, my son." Rabbi Yehoshua's approach prevailed over that of Rabbi A. The 'Torah of negotiation' replaced the 'Torah of tradition' that had prevailed until that day.

The friend and brother-in-law of the great Rabbi, Rabbi Divna HaNasi, apparently also shared his position regarding the 'Torah of tradition'. Therefore, he, like Rabbi, also cared about the reliability of those who transmitted it. He placed guards at the entrance to the court who did not allow anyone who was not already well-versed in it to enter. It is necessary to ensure that the Torah is transmitted by someone who is trustworthy in passing it on. The Rabbi who replaced him represented a position similar to that of Rabbi Yehoshua. When the Torah is examined in the furnace of interpretation, it is less important to filter the learners according to their qualities and personality. Things are examined for their substance, and not for the substance of the speaker.[2]

We have learned that the content of the debate of 'that day' was essentially Torah: 'The Torah of tradition' was replaced by 'The Torah of negotiation.' There was a revolution here in the perception of Toshba's doctrine.

In the course of 'the Torah of Tradition', fundamental debates cannot be decided. Everyone remains faithful to what they think they received from their rabbi. We see that the R.A. tries to decide the debate by irrelevant means. This is an essential characteristic of the Torah of Tradition. The R.A. does not accept that his students/companions can, by virtue of their own reasoning, 'put their heads between the high mountains' and decide questions that were discussed by the sages of previous generations. The only way to decide, according to the R.A., is to seek references from his rabbis.

To understand the timing and special significance of the revolution described here, one must return to the historical background of the period. Maimonides, in his introduction to the Mishnah, describes the emergence of disputes in Israel following a situation in which the disciples of Hillel and Shammai did not serve their rabbis to their full extent, and as a result, forgetfulness increased, and disputes arose (cf. Sanhedrin 58:1).

There were, of course, a few disputes before that (the first one we know of was during the reign of the Greeks, who "darkened the eyes of Israel." This was between a pair of "Yosim" (Ben Yoezer and Ben Yochanan) regarding the ordination of the Yotish), but during the time of Hillel and Shammai, it was the first time that two "houses," or two general schools of thought, were created: the House of Hillel and the House of Shammai.

The 'Torah of Tradition' has no solution to such a situation. It is not possible to decide between two schools of thought based on different sources. Everyone remembers that their rabbi said something differently, and there is no way to decide which tradition is correct.

The situation at that time seemed desperate. The Torah was crumbling, and it seemed as if it was about to pass away from the world as the only authentic and unique expression of the word of God. This is perhaps how we can understand the description that the Sages convey to us that the disciples of Shammai literally killed the disciples of Hillel (Yerushalmi Shabbat 1:4).[3]

It is worth noting that Hillel and Shammai were the generation before the Riv"z, meaning that their students formed into "houses" approximately from the time of the Riv"z onwards. In Pirkei Avot it is described that he himself received from both of them. In the Sukkah he is described as the youngest of the students of Hillel the Elder. His student Rabbi Eliezer is already known as "Shmotti."

In light of all of the above, it is clear that in the first generation of Yavneh, the controversy is already at its peak, and the fear of a general disintegration of the Torah and the people of Israel is beginning to take on very worrying dimensions.

The first generation of Yavneh scholars, led by their elder Rabbi Yehoshua ben Hananiah (Ra's friend), understood that such a situation required a real revolution in the perception of the Toshba. A new way must be developed that would allow for decisions between two schools of thought. Legitimization must be given to negotiations, to intellectual decisions, or, more often, opinions, on open issues. The revolution of Rabbi Yehoshua, who succeeds in establishing his position, as described in the story of Aknai's oven, is joined by his friends/disciples: Rabbi Elazar ben Azariah, who is appointed as a very young president in place of Rabbi Gad, and Rabbi Akiva.

Akhnai's Furnace was a debate that illustrates the nature of all discussions of Tractate Idiyot that were revised in 'That Day.' The goal of the revolution, as stated, was to allow for a decision between opposing positions. Therefore, all open questions that could not be decided in the era of the 'Torah of Tradition' are immediately brought by the Rabbis for a decision through negotiation and voting. Every Tractate Idiyot, which is an unusual Tractate in the Shas, without a clearly defined subject of the Tractate, is revised in 'That Day.' This Tractate definitely has a central subject: it is an expression of the new Toshbap, the 'Torah of Negotiation.'

Following the revolution, the Rabbi is ostracized by his friends, as we see later in the Sugaya D'V"M in a touching description (the Rabbi, who was chosen to deliver the bitter news to his rabbi, says to him: "Rabbi, it seems that your friends are far from you," and they both cry). As we see in the aforementioned Sanhedrin Sugayas, he remains in his ostracism until the day he dies (and not until at all). He sits alone in Lod, complaining that no one comes to draw from the immense reservoir of Toshvaf that he carries with him.

From the issue itself, it is not clear what the excommunication was about. It is not clear what sin the Rabbi committed by daring to express a different position. In light of what we have said here, it is clear that this was a statement that sought to negate the legitimacy of the 'Torah of Tradition' position that he represented. In light of the criticality of the situation in Israel, as described above, it is clear that the sages needed drastic measures to assimilate and internalize in the High Court the new face that Toshba'p is taking.

R.G. is also removed from the presidency in an unprecedented move, ostensibly because of the insult of R. Yehoshua, who returns to Shas on three different occasions. Here too, this is an expression of R.G.'s desire to assert his hierarchical position, which is in keeping with the 'Torah of Tradition', in contrast to R. Yehoshua, the 'rebel', who follows his logic and not authority. R. Yehoshua's rebellion, which comes at the same time as R.G.'s acceptance of R.G.'s authority to the point of desecrating the Holy Spirit, which he calculates occurred, is a sublime expression of a 'holy rebellion'. He is not interested in breaking the frameworks, but rather in trying to convince his friends of the necessity of the path of persuasion itself. This is a dispute for the sake of heaven that is destined to continue.

The R.G. is removed from the presidency and the R.A. is appointed in his place, who, as we recall, 'closes' all the 'open' questions that day in a dramatic move. However, later in the Sugya in the Blessings, the R.G. is described as immediately returning to the Beihmad, and accepting the 'rules of the game'. A discussion with R. Yehoshua regarding a foreigner from Ammon is described there ('On that day' Yehuda the foreigner from Ammon came, etc.), and the halakhah is ruled upon as R. Yehoshua demanding an innovative sermon from the verses, contrary to the traditional understanding represented by the R.G. The R.G. accepts the 'Torah of negotiation' upon himself, and is therefore immediately restored to his previous position in rotation with the R.A. In contrast, the R.A. remains in exile until the day of his death, since he stands by his opponents. As described in the aforementioned Sanhedrin Sugya, the R.A. continues to champion the 'Torah of tradition' until the day of his death.

It seems that this meaning can be clearly seen during the Sugiya in the celebration, page 3, where the references of R. A. (who lives in exile in Lod) and R. Yehoshua (who lives in Peki'in) to what is happening in Yavneh, where R. G. and R. A. serve as presidents alternately, are presented.

The story of Rabbi Yochanan ben Baruka and Rabbi Elazar Chasma who went to meet Rabbi Yehoshua in Peki'in. He asked them what was new in the court today. His disciples said to him, "We are your disciples, and we drink from your water." He said to them, "Nevertheless, there is no court without newness. Whose Sabbath was it?" [=Rab"a or Rg]? It was the Sabbath of Rabbi Elazar ben Azariah. And what was the Haggadah today, etc.

Rabbi Yehoshua tells his students not to be captive to the pre-revolutionary concept: There is no court without innovation. The 'Torah of negotiation' is a living and developing Torah, and not merely preserved, like the 'Torah of tradition'. Here it is impossible that there are no innovations.

Continuing the theme of the celebration, the Rab's sermons are presented, which mean that all of Israel has a part in the Torah (women and children come to the congregation), since there is a place for everyone in the courtroom as well. Another sermon deals with the fact that Israel makes God one division in the world, meaning that all opinions are part of a mosaic that only the whole as a whole reflects God. These, of course, reflect the revolution that Rab's sermon is leading as president in Yavneh.

Rabbi Yehoshua is amazed by the sermons and rebukes his students who sought to deprive him of such gems. It turns out that these sermons, which at first glance seem merely "must-sees," are gems because of the worldview embodied in them. Therefore, Rabbi Yehoshua begins his sermon by praising the "Torah of Negotiation," which, as mentioned, is a living and developing Torah:

And he too began and demanded: "The words of the wise are like spurs and like nails planted in the midst of the flocks, given by one shepherd."…What is this planting that is fruitful and fruitful? Even the words of Torah are fruitful and fruitful.

And now comes the main point:

'Those who have assemblies' are scholars who sit in assemblies and engage in Torah. These defile and these purify, these forbid and these permit, these disqualify and these equip. Lest a man say, "How can I learn Torah from now on?" Learn to say, "They all gave from one shepherd," to one, one provision was given. This is from the mouth of the Lord of all actions, blessed be He, as it is written, "And God spoke all these words." You also make your ears like an eardrum, and get yourself an understanding heart to hear the words of those who defile and those who purify, the words of those who forbid and those who permit, the words of those who disqualify and those who equip.

Here is the program of the entire Yavneh revolution led by Rabbi Yehoshua and the Rabbi. Afterwards, Rabbi Yehoshua expresses the great salvation that this approach brought to the Torah and to the people of Israel, who seemed to him like an orphaned generation facing extinction (as mentioned above):

In this language he said to them: There is no generation of orphans in which Rabbi Elazar ben Azariah resides.

Later in the Gemara, a parallel, but contrasting, meeting is described between Rabbi Yossi and the great Rabbi, who, as mentioned, lives as an outcast in Lod.

The story of Rabbi Yossi ben Dormaskit, who went to meet Rabbi Eliezer[4] In Lod. He said to him: What was new in the synagogue today?

Unlike Rabbi Yehoshua above, Rabbi A. of course criticizes the approach of the 'innovations' that took hold in the Yavneh of Rabbi A.

God counted and finished Ammon and Moab, tithes of the poor in the seventh. He said to him: Joseph, stretch out your hands and receive your sight. He stretched out his hands and received your sight. [We will go blind]. The Rabbi wept and said, "The secret of the Lord is for those who fear Him, and His covenant is to be made known to them." He said to him, "Go and tell them, 'Do not be afraid of your number.'" This is what we have accepted from Rabbi Yochanan ben Zakkai, who heard from his master and his master, that the law was given to Moses from Sinai, Ammon, and Moab, tithes, a tenth of the poor on the seventh day.…

RA rebels against the Yavneh sages who innovate 'innovations' (ironically), which in RA's repository are found as simple halakha to Moses from Sinai that he received from his rabbis.[5] As stated, RA remained in his opposition, claiming that all the innovations of the 'revolutionaries' had been known to him since time immemorial. Therefore, RA remained in exile until the end of his days.

In light of the historical background and the parallel issues, it seems quite clear that the entire point of this issue is the Yavneh revolution of 'that day.' Here, the positions of R. A. and R. Yehoshua are presented against each other, through a description of their attitude to what was happening in Yavneh of R. A.

It seems that the process described here is what lies behind the description in Pirkei Avot. The Tanna in Avot describes the Torah as being received and transmitted only until the time of the Rivaz. His disciples no longer 'receive' in the previous sense. Although the Rivaz is a 'secret scribe who does not lose a drop', in the end it was not he who 'received' from the Rivaz but rather Rabbi Yehoshua, who, as mentioned, is no longer called a 'receiver'. In the era of the 'Torah of Negotiation' the 'receiver' is not a receiver, nor is he an individual or a couple. The gates of the court are opened to the masses, since each person is examined according to the content of his words and not according to what he is (on the merits of the matter and not on the merits of the person).

During the generations of Rivaz and his disciples, the great split of the disciples of Hillel and Shammai occurs, which does not serve their every need, and the disputes that threaten the Torah and the entire people are created. Rivaz's disciples rescue the Torah and the people from this impossible situation by defining a new way of negotiating and deciding. This is the Yavneh Revolution that takes place entirely on 'that very day'.

In conclusion, it should be noted that the Torah, as we have it today, is a combination of the 'Torah of tradition' with the 'Torah of negotiation.' The path of revolutions is made by presenting an extreme position in order to tilt the previous extremism to the middle path, as is the well-known path of the Maimonides in Hal' De'ot and its introductions. The end of the process is dialectical: the two extremes join in a more complete and comprehensive healthy approach.

In the Sanhedrin issues of 68 and 101, there are parallel descriptions (with important changes) of the visit of the disciples of the great Rabbi to their rabbi on the day of his passing.

As can be seen in Mishnah Sanhedrin 67, Rabbi Akiva studies the law of 'years of lektin zishuaim' from Rabbi A. In the same book (on page 68) it is described that he receives the law from him as a tradition without understanding, and then he turns to Rabbi Yehoshua who explains the law to him and convinces him with evidence, and only then does he accept it. Thus he moves from Rabbi A's court to Rabbi Yehoshua's court. Both are considered by him as his rabbis. Also on page 111 there Rabbi A says that the only one who came to ask him (to draw from his 'reserve') is Rabbi A.

Rabbi Akiva ben Yosef leads the Torah to a complete synthesis. His Torah is a combination of tradition and negotiation. Therefore, Rabbi Akiva is considered the father of all Tosheva as it has come down to us, as Rabbi Yochanan said: "Just Matin' Ram, just Tosefta Rabbi Nehemiah, just Sefra Rabbi Yehuda, just Sefrei Rash, and all of it is according to Dr. Akiva" (Sanhedrin 16).

[1] The essence of the interpretation here of the events that occurred that day is presented in the book "To the Knowledge of Wisdom" by Menachem Fish (published by the Van Leer Institute and the United Kibbutz).

[2] As is the custom of 'investigations', the description here is presented in a polar manner. As we will see later, reality is composed of both approaches, and it is clear that there is significance to the personality of the T.A.H., and this is not necessary in the first place.

[3] My thanks to Rabbi Toiber who enlightened me to this understanding of these chilling events. Interestingly, this act is also described as occurring 'on that day', but simply speaking of the same day that Beit Shammai argued against Beit Hillel in the Ha-Ha-Davar. Perhaps this event also occurred on our 'that day', and may God bless you.

This violent struggle is usually attributed to the rivalry between the fanatics and the moderates in the Great Revolt against the Romans, with the Jews leaning toward the moderates and the Jews leaning toward the fanatics. We conclude that there is an influence here of prejudices regarding the fanaticism of the Jews and the tolerance of the Jews as it is perceived today outside the world of the Jewish court. Even today, many of those considered extremists and uncompromising in their religious views (especially in the Haredi world) have moderate political positions, and so on.

[4] The Gemara states that Rabbi Elazar is the one, but in light of the Mishnah, 4:14, it is clear that this is Rabbi Eliezer (the great). This is also the case later in the Sugiya. As is known, Rabbi Eliezer is from Lod.

[5] Rashi interprets the words of Rabbi Yosef as a confession to God for having stumbled upon the truth. From the Gemara's summary, it appears that this is a criticism of the 'invention of the wheel.' Therefore, he also blinded Rabbi Yosef. And Tza.