Wherever We Say 'On That Day,' It Was That Very Day — One Decisive Day in the Development of the Oral Torah

From the Wilderness, a Gift – 5762

In Berakhot 28a, after the description of Rabban Gamliel’s removal from the presidency and the appointment of Rabbi Elazar ben Azariah in his place, we are taught: "Wherever we say, "On that day," it was that very day.". Everywhere in the Talmud where the expression ‘on that day’ appears, it refers to the day of the removal. We shall try to clarify, at least somewhat, the character of that day, which merited such a place throughout the Talmud.[1]

In the second generation of the tannaim in Yavne, a revolution took place whose significance for the development of the Oral Torah was of the highest order. Traces of this event appear in several places in the Talmud, usually in extremely dramatic descriptions (the oven of Akhnai in Bava Metzia 59b, the removal of Rabban Gamliel in Berakhot 28a, the death of Rabbi Eliezer the Great in Sanhedrin 68a and 101a, and the passage in Hagigah 3), but the historical and essential connection among them is not always apparent at first glance. Words of Torah are often poor in one place and rich in another, and therefore we shall begin the discussion with an examination of a puzzling phenomenon in Avot.

Chapter 1 of tractate Avot describes the transmission of the Torah from Moses to Joshua, to the elders, and so on. The process of transmission described in chapter 1 ends with the fifth and final pair: Hillel and Shammai. From that point onward, sayings are cited in the names of sages from various generations, until chapter 2, mishnah 9. There, the description of the process of transmitting (or receiving) the Torah is unexpectedly renewed with the words: "Rabban Yohanan ben Zakkai received from Hillel and Shammai."—Rabban Yohanan ben Zakkai received from Hillel and Shammai. Yet immediately afterward this process comes definitively to an end. In the following mishnah we are already taught: "Rabban Yohanan ben Zakkai had five disciples, and these are they: Rabbi Eliezer ben Hyrcanus and Rabbi Yehoshua ben Hananiah."—Rabban Yohanan ben Zakkai had five students, and these were Rabbi Eliezer ben Hyrcanus and Rabbi Yehoshua ben Hananiah, and so forth.

Up to Rabban Yohanan ben Zakkai, the process is described as one of constant reception of Torah: Moses received…and transmitted; Hillel and Shammai received from them. In fact, the process stops at the end of chapter 1, aside from Rabban Yohanan ben Zakkai, who is also described (separately, in chapter 2) as still being one who receives. From Rabban Yohanan ben Zakkai onward, the terms ‘reception’ or ‘transmission’ no longer appear in Avot with respect to the development of Torah. Even when the development of Torah is described, as with the students of Rabban Yohanan ben Zakkai, it appears without a relation of reception from generation to generation. It is also worth noting that in the generation after Rabban Yohanan ben Zakkai there is no single outstanding figure, or pair, as there had been until then. The process becomes more collective, and each sage has several students.

Rabban Yohanan ben Zakkai is conventionally regarded as belonging to the first generation of tannaim. In his day the Destruction took place, and he famously requested Yavne and its sages. The generation after him was that of Rabban Gamliel of Yavne, who served as Nasi; Rabbi Eliezer ben Hyrcanus (Rabbi Eliezer the Great), Rabban Gamliel’s brother-in-law; Rabbi Yehoshua ben Hananiah, Rabbi Eliezer’s colleague and disputant; and with them Rabbi Elazar ben Azariah, who was younger than they, and Rabbi Akiva ben Yosef, who was, as is well known, older, yet still in the category of a student (at first of Rabbi Eliezer the Great, and ultimately of Rabbi Yehoshua).

It seems that the change in terminology between the period of reception from master to disciple and the period of mass learning by students from their teacher reflects a significant process that the Oral Torah underwent in the first generation of Yavne (the second generation of tannaim).

In Bava Metzia 59b, another dramatic event is described, in which Rabbi Yehoshua and Rabbi Eliezer the Great disagree over the law of the impurity of a segmented oven (the oven of Akhnai).

 It was taught: On that day Rabbi Eliezer answered with every argument in the world, but they did not accept them from him. He said to them: If the Jewish law is in accordance with me, let this carob tree prove it.…Let the aqueduct prove it.…Let the walls of the study hall prove it.…A heavenly voice came forth and said: Why do you oppose my son Eliezer, seeing that the Jewish law follows him in every place? Rabbi Yehoshua stood on his feet and said, "It is not in heaven."…We pay no heed to a heavenly voice, for You already wrote at Mount Sinai in the Torah, "Follow the majority." (A tannaitic source taught: On that day Rabbi Eliezer gave every answer in the world, but they did not accept them from him. He said to them: If the law is in accordance with me, let this carob tree prove it… let the stream prove it… let the walls of the study hall prove it… A heavenly voice came forth and said: Why do you dispute with my son Eliezer, for the law accords with him in every place. Rabbi Yehoshua stood on his feet and said, ‘It is not in heaven’… We pay no heed to a heavenly voice, for You have already written in the Torah at Mount Sinai, ‘Incline after the majority.’)

First, let us note that the term ‘on that day’ appears here. It seems that the intention is not merely the day of the discussion as such, but that this is indeed ‘that day’ on which Rabban Gamliel was removed from the presidency. The proof is that in tractate Berakhot it is stated that the entire tractate Eduyot was taught on ‘that day,’ and in Eduyot 7:7 it is explicit: "They testified concerning an oven cut into rings, with sand placed between each ring, that it is impure—whereas Rabbi Eliezer declares it pure."—they testified regarding an oven that had been cut into sections, with sand placed between each section, that it is impure, whereas Rabbi Eliezer declares it pure.

To understand the meaning of the drama that occurred on ‘that day,’ one must note that Rabbi Eliezer the Great consistently represents the approach that holds that the Torah is entirely tradition, and we shall illustrate this very briefly. In Sukkah 28a, Rabbi Eliezer testifies about himself that he never said anything he had not heard from his teacher. In Avot, Rabban Yohanan ben Zakkai there lists Rabbi Eliezer’s praise as "A cemented cistern that does not lose a drop."—a plastered cistern that loses not a drop. He too would testify about himself that "If all the seas were ink, and all the reeds were pens, and all human beings were scribes, they would still be unable to write down all that I have read and studied."—if all the waters were ink, all the reeds pens, and all human beings scribes, they could not write all that I have read and repeated (Avot de-Rabbi Natan 25; see also Sanhedrin 67b-68a and 101a), along with many other examples. Rabbi Eliezer was an enormous repository of the Torah of his teachers, and everything he said was in their name. His Torah was a Torah of tradition, of reception.

In the debate in Bava Metzia over the oven of Akhnai, Rabbi Eliezer brings proofs that are, on the face of it, irrelevant: a carob tree, a stream, a heavenly voice, and so forth. Rabbi Eliezer is trying to prove that he is a valid authority, not to prove the law itself—that is, that the content of his words is true. For Rabbi Eliezer, Jewish law is determined by his trustworthiness as a transmitter of the Torah of his teachers, and therefore he tries to prove that he is a worthy ‘conduit,’ and that one should therefore believe him that this is what he received from his teachers. That is why the proofs are not on the substantive plane. All the proofs in the world that Rabbi Eliezer brought on that day, before the ‘mystical’ stage of the discussion began, were apparently citations from the teachings of his teachers.

But Rabbi Yehoshua, his colleague and disputant, disagreed with him precisely on this point. He argued that Jewish law is determined by reason: "It is not in heaven."—it is not in heaven. And if there is no decision through rational persuasion, then one counts and votes and follows the majority: "Follow the majority."—incline after the majority. About this the Holy One, blessed be He, said, as described later there: "My children have defeated Me."—My children have defeated Me. Rabbi Yehoshua’s approach triumphed over that of Rabbi Eliezer. A ‘Torah of give-and-take’ replaced the ‘Torah of tradition’ that had ruled until that day.

Rabbi Eliezer the Great’s colleague and brother-in-law, Rabban Gamliel of Yavne, the Nasi, apparently also shared his position regarding a ‘Torah of tradition.’ He too, like Rabbi Eliezer, was concerned with the trustworthiness of those who transmitted it. He stationed guards at the entrance to the study hall who did not allow anyone whose inside did not match his outside to enter. One must ensure that the Torah is transmitted into the hands of someone trustworthy in passing it onward. Rabbi Elazar ben Azariah, who replaced him, represented a position similar to that of Rabbi Yehoshua. When Torah is tested in the crucible of reasoning, it is less important to screen the students according to their character traits and personality. The words are judged on their own merits, not by the merits of the person who says them.[2]

We thus find that the content of the dispute of ‘that day’ concerned the very nature of Torah: a ‘Torah of tradition’ was replaced by a ‘Torah of give-and-take.’ A revolution in the conception of the Oral Torah took place here.

Within the framework of a ‘Torah of tradition,’ it is impossible to decide principled disputes. Each person remains faithful to what he thinks he received from his teacher. We see that Rabbi Eliezer attempts to decide the dispute by means that are not substantive. This is an essential characteristic of a Torah of tradition. Rabbi Eliezer does not accept that his students or colleagues can, by force of their own reasoning, insert their heads between the great mountains and decide questions already discussed by the sages of earlier generations. According to Rabbi Eliezer, the only path to decision is the search for supporting authorities in the teachings of one’s teachers.

To understand the timing and the special significance of the revolution described here, one must return to the historical background of the period. In his introduction to the Mishnah, Maimonides describes the emergence of disputes among Israel following a situation in which the students of Hillel and Shammai did not sufficiently attend upon their teachers, and as a result forgetfulness increased and disputes arose (see Sanhedrin 88b).

There were, of course, isolated disputes even earlier (the first known to us was in the days of Greek rule, which ‘darkened the eyes of Israel’; it was conducted between the pair of the two Yoses—ben Yo’ezer and ben Yohanan—regarding laying on hands on a Festival day), but in the time of Hillel and Shammai this was the first time that two ‘houses,’ or two general schools, came into being: Beit Hillel and Beit Shammai.

A ‘Torah of tradition’ has no solution whatsoever for such a situation. It is impossible to decide between two schools resting on different sources. Each person remembers that his teacher said otherwise, and there is no way to determine which tradition is the correct one.

The situation at that time appeared desperate. The Torah was disintegrating, and it seemed as though, Heaven forbid, it was about to pass out of the world as an authentic and unique expression of the word of God. This perhaps enables us to understand the description transmitted to us by the sages that the students of Shammai actually killed students of Hillel (Jerusalem Talmud, Shabbat 1:4).[3]

It is worth noting that Hillel and Shammai were the generation before Rabban Yohanan ben Zakkai; that is, their students coalesced into ‘houses’ roughly from the time of Rabban Yohanan ben Zakkai onward. In Avot he himself is described as having received from both of them. In Sukkah he is described as the youngest of Hillel the Elder’s students. His student Rabbi Eliezer is already known as a Shammaite.

In light of all this, it stands to reason that in the first generation of Yavne the dispute was already being waged in full force, and the fear of a general disintegration of the Torah and of the Jewish people was beginning to assume very alarming proportions.

The sages of the first generation of Yavne, under the leadership of the eldest among them, Rabbi Yehoshua ben Hananiah (Rabbi Eliezer’s colleague), understood that such a situation required a real revolution in the conception of the Oral Torah. A new way had to be developed that would make it possible to decide between two schools. Legitimacy had to be granted to give-and-take, to rational decision, or to following the majority of opinions, in unresolved topics. Joining Rabbi Yehoshua’s revolution—who succeeds in establishing his position, as described in the story of the oven of Akhnai—are his colleagues or students: Rabbi Elazar ben Azariah, who is appointed Nasi at a very young age in place of Rabban Gamliel, and Rabbi Akiva.

The oven of Akhnai was a dispute that exemplifies the character of all the discussions in tractate Eduyot, which was taught on ‘that day.’ The purpose of the revolution, as noted, was to make decision between opposing positions possible. Therefore, all the open questions that could not reach a decision in the era of the ‘Torah of tradition’ are immediately brought by Rabbi Elazar ben Azariah for decision through debate and voting. The entire tractate Eduyot—which is an exceptional tractate in the Talmudic corpus, lacking a clearly defined subject—was taught on ‘that day.’ This tractate most definitely does have a central subject: it is an expression of the new Oral Torah, a ‘Torah of give-and-take.’

Following the revolution, Rabbi Eliezer is placed under a ban by his colleagues, as is seen later in the Bava Metzia passage in a heartrending description (Rabbi Akiva, who is chosen to deliver the bitter tidings to his teacher, says to him: "Rabbi, it seems that your colleagues are keeping their distance from you."—Master, it seems that your colleagues are distancing themselves from you—and both of them weep). As is evident from the above-mentioned Sanhedrin passages, he remained under this ban until the day of his death, but not including it. He sits alone in Lod and complains that no one comes to draw from the immense reservoir of the Oral Torah that he bears within himself.

From the passage itself, it is not clear why the ban was imposed. It is not clear what sin Rabbi Eliezer committed by daring to express a different position. In light of our analysis here, it is clear that there was an attempt to deny the legitimacy of the position of the ‘Torah of tradition’ that he represented. Given the critical state of Israel, as described above, it is clear that the sages required drastic measures in order to implant and internalize in the study hall the new form that the Oral Torah was assuming.

Rabban Gamliel too is removed from the presidency in an unprecedented step, ostensibly because of his humiliation of Rabbi Yehoshua, which recurs in the Talmud in three different cases. Here too this is an expression of Rabban Gamliel’s desire to impose his hierarchical position, appropriate to a ‘Torah of tradition,’ as against Rabbi Yehoshua the ‘rebel,’ who follows his reasoning rather than authority. Rabbi Yehoshua’s rebellion, which comes in parallel with his acceptance of Rabban Gamliel’s authority to the point of desecrating Yom Kippur when it fell according to his own reckoning, is an elevated expression of a ‘holy rebellion.’ He is not interested in breaking the frameworks, but in trying to persuade his colleagues of the necessity of the very path of persuasion itself. This is a dispute for the sake of Heaven, one destined to endure.

Rabban Gamliel is removed from the presidency and Rabbi Elazar ben Azariah is put in his place, and, as noted, on that day he dramatically ‘closes’ all the ‘open’ questions. Yet later in the passage in Berakhot, Rabban Gamliel is described as immediately returning to the study hall and accepting the ‘rules of the game.’ A discussion is described there with Rabbi Yehoshua regarding an Ammonite convert ("On that day, Yehudah the Ammonite convert came, etc."), and Jewish law is ruled in accordance with Rabbi Yehoshua, who derives an innovative exposition from the verses against the traditional understanding represented by Rabban Gamliel. Rabban Gamliel accepts the ‘Torah of give-and-take,’ and therefore is immediately restored to his previous status in rotation with Rabbi Elazar ben Azariah. Unlike him, Rabbi Eliezer remains under his ban until the day of his death, since he persists in his defiance. As described in the above-mentioned Sanhedrin passages, Rabbi Eliezer continues to uphold a ‘Torah of tradition’ until the day of his death.

It seems that this significance can be clearly seen in the course of the passage in Hagigah 3, where the reactions of Rabbi Eliezer (who sits under the ban in Lod) and Rabbi Yehoshua (who sits in Peki’in) to what is taking place in Yavne are presented, where Rabban Gamliel and Rabbi Elazar ben Azariah serve alternately as Nasi.

There was an incident involving Rabbi Yohanan ben Beroka and Rabbi Elazar Hisma, who went to greet Rabbi Yehoshua in Peki'in. He said to them: What new matter was discussed in the study hall today? They said to him: We are your disciples, and from your waters we drink. He said to them: Even so, a study hall is never without a new teaching. Whose Sabbath was it?[=Rabbi Elazar ben Azariah or Rabban Gamliel]? It was the Sabbath of Rabbi Elazar ben Azariah. And what exposition was given that day, etc. (An incident occurred involving Rabbi Yohanan ben Beroka and Rabbi Elazar Hasma, who went to greet Rabbi Yehoshua in Peki’in. He said to them: What new teaching was there in the study hall today? They said to him: We are your students and drink from your waters. He said to them: Even so, there is no study hall without something new. Whose Sabbath was it? It was Rabbi Elazar ben Azariah’s Sabbath. And what was the aggadic discourse about today? etc.)

Rabbi Yehoshua tells his students not to remain captive to the conception that preceded the revolution: there is no study hall without something new. A ‘Torah of give-and-take’ is a living and developing Torah, and not merely a preserved one, like the ‘Torah of tradition.’ Here, it is impossible that there should be no innovations.

Later in the passage in Hagigah, Rabbi Elazar ben Azariah’s expositions are cited, whose meaning is that all Israel have a share in Torah (women and children come to the Hakhel assembly), for there is room for everyone in the study hall as well. Another exposition deals with the idea that Israel makes the Holy One, blessed be He, one unified entity in the world; that is, all opinions are parts of a mosaic whose entirety alone, taken as a whole, reflects the Holy One, blessed be He. These, of course, reflect the revolution that Rabbi Elazar ben Azariah is leading as Nasi in Yavne.

Rabbi Yehoshua is deeply impressed by these expositions and rebukes his students, who wished to deprive him of such pearls. Apparently, these expositions, which at first glance seem to be mere homiletics, are pearls because of the worldview embodied in them. For that reason, Rabbi Yehoshua opens with an exposition of his own in praise of the ‘Torah of give-and-take,’ which, as noted, is a living and developing Torah:

He too began and expounded: "The words of the wise are like goads, and like well-planted nails; those who gather in assemblies were given by one shepherd."…Just as this planting bears fruit and multiplies, so too the words of Torah bear fruit and multiply. (And he too opened and expounded: ‘The words of the sages are like goads and like firmly planted nails, given by one shepherd… Just as a planting bears fruit and multiplies, so too words of Torah bear fruit and multiply.’)

And now to the main point:

"Those who gather in assemblies"—these are Torah scholars who sit in many groups and engage in Torah. Some declare impure and others declare pure; some prohibit and others permit; some disqualify and others validate. Lest a person say: How then can I study Torah from now on? Scripture therefore says, "They were all given by one shepherd"—one God gave them, one leader spoke them, from the mouth of the Master of all deeds, blessed be He, as it is written: "And God spoke all these words." So you too, make your ears like a hopper and acquire for yourself an understanding heart to hear the words of those who declare impure and the words of those who declare pure, the words of those who prohibit and the words of those who permit, the words of those who disqualify and the words of those who validate. (‘Masters of assemblies’—these are Torah scholars who sit in many assemblies and engage in Torah. These declare impure and those declare pure; these prohibit and those permit; these disqualify and those validate. Lest a person say: How can I henceforth learn Torah? Scripture therefore says: ‘All of them were given by one shepherd.’ One God gave them; one leader uttered them from the mouth of the Master of all deeds, blessed be He, as it is written: ‘And God spoke all these words.’ You too, make your ears like a funnel and acquire for yourself an understanding heart, to hear the words of those who declare impure and the words of those who declare pure, the words of those who prohibit and the words of those who permit, the words of those who disqualify and the words of those who validate.)

Here lies the program of the entire Yavne revolution led by Rabbi Yehoshua and Rabbi Elazar ben Azariah. After this, Rabbi Yehoshua expresses the great rescue that this approach brought to the Torah and to the Jewish people, which in his eyes had appeared like an orphaned generation standing before destruction (as explained above):

In this language he said to them: No generation is orphaned when Rabbi Elazar ben Azariah dwells within it. (In these words he said to them: No generation is orphaned when Rabbi Elazar ben Azariah dwells within it.)

Later in the Talmud there, a parallel yet opposite meeting is described, between Rabbi Yosei and his teacher Rabbi Eliezer the Great, who, as noted, sits under the ban in Lod.

There was an incident involving Rabbi Yosei ben Dormaskit, who went to greet Rabbi Eliezer.[4]In Lod. He said to him: What new matter was discussed in the study hall today? (An incident occurred involving Rabbi Yosei ben Dormaskit, who went to greet Rabbi Eliezer in Lod. He said to him: What new teaching was there in the study hall today?)

Unlike Rabbi Yehoshua above, Rabbi Eliezer of course criticizes the approach of ‘innovations’ that had taken over the Yavne of Rabbi Elazar ben Azariah.

He said to him: They took a vote and concluded that Ammon and Moab tithe the poor tithe in the seventh year. He said to him: Yosei, stretch out your hands and receive your eyes. He stretched out his hands and received his eyesight.[he became blind].Rabbi Eliezer wept and said, "The counsel of the Lord is for those who fear Him, and His covenant is to make it known to them." He said to him: Go and tell them, Do not be concerned about your vote count; so we have received from Rabban Yohanan ben Zakkai, who heard from his teacher, and his teacher from his teacher, as a law given to Moses at Sinai: Ammon and Moab tithe the poor tithe in the seventh year.… (He said to him: They voted and concluded that Ammon and Moab give the poor tithe in the Sabbatical year. He said to him: Yosei, stretch out your hands and forfeit your eyes. He stretched out his hands and lost his sight. Rabbi Eliezer wept and said: ‘The secret of the Lord is with those who fear Him, and His covenant is to make it known to them.’ He said to him: Go and tell them, Do not concern yourselves with your vote; thus have we received from Rabban Yohanan ben Zakkai, who heard from his teacher, and his teacher from his teacher, a law given to Moses at Sinai: Ammon and Moab give the poor tithe in the Sabbatical year…)

Rabbi Eliezer rises up against the sages of Yavne, who are introducing ‘innovations’—ironically, for in Rabbi Eliezer’s own storehouse they already exist as a simple law given to Moses at Sinai that he received from his teachers.[5] Rabbi Eliezer, as noted, remained defiant, claiming that all the innovations of the ‘revolutionaries’ had been known to him from time immemorial. That is why Rabbi Eliezer remained under his ban until the end of his life.

In light of the historical background and the parallel passages, it seems quite clear that the entire concern of this passage is the Yavne revolution of ‘that day.’ Here the positions of Rabbi Eliezer and Rabbi Yehoshua are set against one another through a description of their reactions to what is taking place in the Yavne of Rabbi Elazar ben Azariah.

It seems that the process described here is what stands behind the description in Avot. The tanna in Avot describes the Torah as being received and transmitted only until the period of Rabban Yohanan ben Zakkai. His students are no longer ‘receivers’ in the earlier sense. True, Rabbi Eliezer is a "A cemented cistern that does not lose a drop."—a plastered cistern that loses not a drop—but in the end it was not he who ‘received’ from Rabban Yohanan ben Zakkai, but precisely Rabbi Yehoshua, who, as noted, is no longer called a ‘receiver.’ In the era of the ‘Torah of give-and-take,’ the ‘receiver’ neither merely receives nor is he an individual or a pair. The gates of the study hall are opened to the masses, because each person is judged by the content of his words and not by who he is (on the merits of the matter and not on the merits of the person).

In the generations of Rabban Yohanan ben Zakkai and his students, the great split of the students of Hillel and Shammai takes place: they did not sufficiently attend upon their teachers, and the disputes came into being that threatened the Torah and the entire people. The students of Rabban Yohanan ben Zakkai rescue the Torah and the people from this impossible situation by means of a new definition of the paths of debate and decision. This is the Yavne revolution, which takes place entirely on ‘that day.’

In conclusion, it should be noted that the Torah as it is in our hands today is a combination of a ‘Torah of tradition’ and a ‘Torah of give-and-take.’ Such is the way of revolutions: they are carried out by presenting an extreme position in order to shift the previous extreme toward the middle path, in accordance with Maimonides’ well-known method in Hilkhot De’ot and in his introductions. The end of the process is dialectical: the two extremes join together into a healthy, whole, and more comprehensive approach.

In the Sanhedrin passages 68a and 101a there are parallel descriptions (with important differences) of the visit of Rabbi Eliezer the Great’s students to their teacher on the day of his death.

As can be seen in Mishnah Sanhedrin 67, Rabbi Akiva learns the law of ‘two who gather cucumbers’ from Rabbi Eliezer. In the Talmud there (on 68a), it is described that he receives the law from him as tradition without understanding, and afterward he turns to Rabbi Yehoshua, who explains the law to him and persuades him by reasoning; only then does he accept it. Thus he passes from the study hall of Rabbi Eliezer to the study hall of Rabbi Yehoshua. Both are regarded by him as his teachers. Also on 101a there, Rabbi Eliezer says that the only one who came to ask him—to draw from his ‘reservoir’—was Rabbi Akiva.

Rabbi Akiva ben Yosef leads Torah to the complete synthesis. His Torah is a combination of tradition and give-and-take. Therefore Rabbi Akiva is regarded as the father of the entire Oral Torah as it has reached us, as Rabbi Yohanan said: "An anonymous Mishnah is Rabbi Meir; an anonymous Tosefta is Rabbi Nehemiah; an anonymous Sifra is Rabbi Yehudah; an anonymous Sifrei is Rabbi Shimon; and all of them follow Rabbi Akiva."—the anonymous Mishnah follows Rabbi Meir, the anonymous Tosefta Rabbi Nehemiah, the anonymous Sifra Rabbi Yehudah, the anonymous Sifrei Rabbi Shimon, and all of them follow Rabbi Akiva (Sanhedrin 86a).

[1] The core of the interpretation presented here regarding the events that took place on that day is set out in Menachem Fisch’s book Lada’at Hokhmah (published by the Van Leer Institute and Hakibbutz Hameuchad).

[2] As is often the case with conceptual analyses, the description here is presented in polarized form. As will be seen below, reality is composed of both approaches, and it goes without saying that the personality of the Torah scholar has significance; the point scarcely requires elaboration.

[3] My thanks to Rabbi Toiber, who opened my eyes to this understanding of these chilling events. It is interesting that this episode too is described as taking place ‘on that day,’ except that in its straightforward sense it refers to the day on which Beit Shammai prevailed over Beit Hillel regarding the eighteen decrees. Perhaps this event too took place on our ‘that day,’ but this requires further investigation.

Usually this violent struggle is attributed to the rivalry between the zealots and the moderates in the Great Revolt against the Romans, with Beit Hillel tending toward the moderates and Beit Shammai toward the zealots. It seems to me that preconceived notions are operating here regarding the zealotry of Beit Shammai and the tolerance of Beit Hillel as these are perceived today outside the world of the study hall. Even today, many of those regarded as extreme and uncompromising in their religious outlook (especially in the Haredi world) hold moderate political positions, but this is not the place to elaborate.

[4] In the Talmud the reading is Rabbi Elazar, but in light of Mishnah Yadayim chapter 4, it is clear that this is Rabbi Eliezer the Great. So too later in the passage. And, as is well known, Rabbi Eliezer’s place is in Lod.

[5] Rashi interprets Rabbi Eliezer’s words as thanksgiving to God that they happened upon the truth. From the straightforward sense of the Talmud, it appears that this is criticism of reinventing the wheel. That is why he also blinds Rabbi Yosei. This requires further consideration.