4

In Pirkei Avot 5:17, when citing an example of a controversy that is for the sake of Heaven, the Mishnah uses the terms "Hillel and Shamai". Many translations that I have seen - including Aish.com and Art Scroll as well as Rabbeinu Yonah's commentary translate this to mean Bet Hillel and Bet Shamai.

Is this a correct translation? If so, why didn't the Mishnah outrightly specify this? Was there an editing error?

DanF
  • 70,416
  • 8
  • 59
  • 244

4 Answers4

3

Milechet Shlomo:

אפשר שר"ל על בעלי המחלוקת עצמן כי שמאי והלל נתקיימו שניהן לא כן קרח שמת וירד שאולה אמנם אין הלשון מתיישב מחלוקת שהיא לשם שמים סופה להתקיים דמשמע המחלוקת עצמה לא בעלי המחלוקת גם לפי זה מה בא התנא ללמדנו שנתקיים שמאי ולא מת למה יומת מה עשה גם אפשר לומר שדברי ב"ש לא נתבטלו לגמרי אלא נשנו דבריהם במשנה לפי שע"י דבריהם נתברר האמת כמו שאמרו בגמרא וכי מאחר שאין הלכה כדברי היחיד למה נשנו דבריו אצל דברי המרובים ותרצו שהוצרכו להזכיר דברי היחיד שאם יבא אדם לומר כך שמעתי וקבלתי יאמרו לו דברי היחיד שמעת ואין הלכה כמותו הרי שמתוך דברי היחיד מתקיימין דברי המרובים כן הוא ב"ש וב"ה מתוך דברי ב"ש יתקיימו דברי ב"ה אבל קרח ועדתו אינו כן שהרי לא הוצרך לאומרו בליעת קרח לקיים הכהונה ביד אהרן כי אם בא האות והמופת פריחת המטה גם זריחת הצרעת למערער על הכהונה א"כ סופה בטלה ואין מתקיים האמת ע"י קרח.

This is discussing the proprietors of the dispute themselves - Shamai and Hillel, they both endured (סופה להתקיים). As apposed to Korach, who died and went to Sheol. However, the language of the Mishnah seems to imply that the dispute itself will endure, not the proprietors of the dispute. Indeed Shamai, proprietor of the unpopular opinion, did not die. Why would he need to die? So, their disputes carry on, and the opinion of Shammi, and subsequently Beit Shamai, serve as a guide to the truth. If someone comes along with Shamai's opinion, his friend can tell him that the law ain't so. [See Ediyot 1]

Dr. Shmuel
  • 633
  • 1
  • 19
  • 69
0

Maharal, in Derech Chaim, says that the machlokos of Hillel and Shammai were the purest form of l'sheim shomayim, in that there was nothing that they could have done differently to prevent them:

שהמחלוקת שלהם היה לשם שמים לגמרי.‏ שלא תוכל לומר עליהם שום צד שלא לשם שמים,‏ שאי אפשר לומר שאם היו מטריחים עצמם בהלכה לעמוד על הדבר,‏ או ילכו לשאול,‏ לא‏ היה צריך להם המחלוקת

It seems that he's contrasting them with Beis Hillel and Beis Shammai, of whom the Gemara (Sanhedrin 88b) says לא שמשו כל צרכם, their machlokos were because they hadn't applied themselves as fully as possible to learn from their teachers.

(The editor's footnotes there, though, are unsure about this understanding, since some of the Maharal's phrasing there - such as the expression אלו ואלו דברי אלקים חיים that he quotes - is, in the original (Eruvin 13b), speaking of Beis Shammai and Beis Hillel.)

Meir
  • 9,176
  • 19
  • 38
-1

This is addressed in the Igeret of Sherirah Gaon 1:5 which says:

וכמה דהוה בית המקדש קיים כל חד וחד מרבוואתא הוה מגמר להו לתלמידי טעמי דאורייתא ודמשנה ודתלמוד במילי דמחבר להון בשעתיה ומורו לתלמידייהו כי היכי דחזי. והוה נפישא חכמה ולא הוו צריכין לטירחי [אחריני] וההיא פלוגתא דסמיכה לחוד הוא דהות ביניהון וכד אתו שמאי והלל נמי בתלת מילי בלחוד הוא דאיפליגו דאמרינן אמר רב הונא בשלשה מקומות נחלקו שמאי והלל וכיון דחריב בית המקדש ואזילו לביתר וחריב נמי ביתר ואיתבדרו רבנן לכל צד. ומשום הנך מהומות ושמדים ושגושין שהיו באותו זמן לא שמשו התלמידים כל צרכן ונפישי מחלוקות. מן כד נחת נפשיה דרבן יוחנן בן זכאי והוה רבן גמליאל והוה נמי עדיין ר' דוסא בן הרכינס ואחריני נמי מהנך ראשונים והות פלוגתא בין בית שמאי ובין בית הלל. ואע"ג דאדחו בית שמאי ונקבעה לכל הלכה כבית הלל הות פלוגתא בדורו של רבן גמליאל בדברים אחרים בין ר' אליעזר דהוי שמותי ובין ר' יהושע דאינון תלמידי רבן יוחנן בן זכאי.

Hillel and Shammai had disagreement (for the sake of Heaven) on only three issues. What is reported in Avot is accurate.

Their students, because of a diminished level in their learning properly (due to the environmental hardships of their time) did not have the level of unity and agreement that their teachers possessed.

That means that they didn't comprehend that there is only one Torah and all the various teachings and approaches are in agreement in reality. They believed that their own views were correct and the teachings of others were wrong.

Consequently, argument and disagreement increased among the students (which was not for the sake of Heaven, but because of their failure to learn sufficiently).

Yaacov Deane
  • 14,809
  • 22
  • 64
  • Where are you getting the last three paragraphs from? R. Sherira isn't saying anything about these students' level of unity or lack thereof, or anything suggesting that they "didn't comprehend that there is only one Torah," or that their arguments weren't for the sake of Heaven. (Perhaps you're confusing them with the 24000 students of R. Akiva שלא נהגו כבוד זה בזה?) – Meir Jan 24 '19 at 16:58
  • Oh, and let's not forget that the Gemara (Eruvin 13b) says about Beis Shammai and Beis Hillel, אלו ואלו דברי אלקים חיים. – Meir Jan 24 '19 at 17:26
  • @Meir No, that is what is recorded by Sherira Gaon in the non-bolded text and in contrast to what preceded them. That's what is meant by the expression that the Rabannan dispersed to each side and that "division; separation; difference, dissension, strife, faction (Machloket) spread among the students. Your citation from Eruvin is emphasizing that both teachings are the words of the (one) G-d of life. – Yaacov Deane Jan 24 '19 at 20:10
  • They wouldn't have been called דברי אלקים חיים if these machlokos weren't לשם שמים (even if, as in my answer, not the ultimate level in that). Let's translate the passage from R. Sherira: "As long as the Beis Hamikdash stood, each of the Sages taught his students the understanding of the Torah, Mishnah and Talmud using wording composed on the spot, and they taught their students as they saw fit. Wisdom was plentiful, and they didn't need to go to any [further] trouble; the only argument they had was about semicha. When Hillel and Shammai came, they too argued only about 3 things..." (cont.) – Meir Jan 24 '19 at 21:27
  • ...as we say: "Rav Huna said: In 3 places Shammai and Hillel disagreed." Later the Beis Hamikdash was destroyed and they moved to Betar, and then Betar too was destroyed and the Sages were scattered in all directions. Due to the upheavals and persecutions and disturbances at that time, the students didn't apply themselves as much as they should have, so machlokos proliferated. (cont.) – Meir Jan 24 '19 at 21:28
  • ...From when Rabban Yochanan ben Zakkai passed away, when Rabban Gamliel was alive, and R. Dosa ben Horkinas and others of the earlier generation were also still alive, there were disputes between Beis Shammai and Beis Hillel. Even though Beis Shammai's opinions were rejected and it was established for everyone that the halachah is like Beis Hillel, there were disputes in Rabban Gamliel's generation between R. Eliezer, who was Shamusi, and R. Yehoshua, both of who were students of Rabban Yochanan ben Zakkai." So all told, nothing about factionalism or lack of mutual respect or whatever. – Meir Jan 24 '19 at 21:28
  • @Meir Thanks for the translation. It makes my point perfectly. – Yaacov Deane Jan 25 '19 at 04:02
  • How so? You write that "they didn't comprehend that there is only one Torah and all the various teachings and approaches are in agreement in reality. They believed that their own views were correct and the teachings of others were wrong." Nothing about that in R. Sherira's wording. You write that their arguments were "not for the sake of Heaven," and again, R. Sherira neither says nor breathes a hint of any such thing. – Meir Jan 25 '19 at 20:01
  • @Meir You do not understand the meaning of the word בדר. – Yaacov Deane Jan 27 '19 at 00:24
  • It's cognate with Hebrew פזר, and it means to scatter (or sprinkle, strew, etc.). איתבדרו רבנן לכל צד means that the Sages were scattered in all directions, not (as you seem to think) that they divided into different factions. In Daf Yomi recently, for example, we had אי בדרי לה סמא, if they sprinkle medicine over (the wound). In Berachos 47b there's אמרי לה כי מכנפי ואמרי לה כי מבדרי, some say that (9 men can count as 10) if they're bunched together, others say if they're widely scattered (again, not "divided into factions"). And so forth. – Meir Jan 27 '19 at 17:12
  • @Meir איתבדרו is 3rd person, plural, future (with a conversive Vav). The subject of that phrase, meaning the ones doing the dividing/scattering to every side were the Rabbanan (the students of Hillel and Shammai). They increased the division both in quantity and quality (because of the hardships they suffered at the time). That trend continued well into the time of the Acharonim as did the hardships and suffering. It’s what follows chapter 1 of Avot. (Consider, for example, the 24K students of Rabbi Akiva) – Yaacov Deane Jan 27 '19 at 19:50
  • No, איתבדרו רבנן does not mean "the Rabbanan divided/scattered." It is a passive form, "the Rabbanan were scattered." The 24000 students of R. Akiva are a category of their own, not the same as Beis Hillel and Beis Shammai; there's a reason why the 24000 are described as לא נהגו כבוד זה בזה and were wiped out in a plague, while Beis Hillel and Beis Shammai are described as the polar opposite - חיבה וריעות נוהגים זה בזה (Yevamos 14b). – Meir Jan 27 '19 at 21:00
  • @Meir It can be translated either way from איתבדר. See the sources and translations mentioned explicitly in Heichal HaKodesh (Jastrow). The important thing to keep in mind is that the object is indeterminate. It can taken to be either way, that they divided themselves (as in what we know about the 24,000 students) or it can be taken that they divided the Torah which they received from their teachers. – Yaacov Deane Jan 28 '19 at 14:34
  • Ithpa. - אִיתְבַּדַּר, אִיבַּדַּר ; Ithpe. אִיתְבְּדַר, אִיבְּדַר to be scattered, to disperse. Targ. Is. XXXIII, 3; a. fr.—Sabb. 20ᵃ קנים מִיבַּדְּרִין (v. Rabb. D. S. a. l. note 300, ed. מבדרן) loose staves in the stove will fall apart (and may require stirring). Lev. R. s. 6 and the denars began מִתְבַּדְּרִין to be scattered. Gitt. 33ᵇ ליבַּרְּרוּ אִיבַּדּוּרֵי (not איבדורו) let them disperse (so as not to be found together). Snh. 8ᵃ bot. ואיבדור and they (the judges) dispersed.—Denom. בִּדּוּר, בִּדּוּרָא. – Yaacov Deane Jan 28 '19 at 14:37
  • First of all, מיבדרין and ליבדרו איבדורי and ואיבדור (without a ת) are not the same form as איתבדרו (with it). Second, the root used for arguments and dissension is פלג, not בדר. Third, you haven't explained why what we know about R. Akiva's 24000 students should have any bearing on Beis Shammai and Beis Hillel, who are the previous generation. Fourth, you haven't addressed the fact that Beis Shammai and Beis Hillel are described as חיבה וריעות נוהגים זה בזה. – Meir Jan 28 '19 at 16:19
  • I really don't understand why you insist that a passage that makes the Sages the victims (they were scattered by persecutions) has to be reinterpreted to make them the villains (that they started dissenting with each other and wouldn't accept each other's views), when even you yourself admit that איתבדרו can be translated either way. – Meir Jan 28 '19 at 16:19
  • @Meir No one is being made the villain. The reason for the descent of the generations is because of the external hardships (persecutions and economic hardships, etc.) It didn't effect only the level of learning. It also effected other things, like for example, saying Birkat Kohanim each day. And as the Torah level drops, like a snowball rolling downhill, it impacts all aspects of creation, including peace and tranquility. – Yaacov Deane Jan 28 '19 at 16:25
  • You wrote: "They didn't comprehend that there is only one Torah and all the various teachings and approaches are in agreement in reality. They believed that their own views were correct and the teachings of others were wrong." That's not "the descent of generations"; that's saying that they were acting and thinking wrongly. And you have absolutely zero evidence that this is the case. (And what does the timing of Birkas Kohanim - where the change in that regard happened hundreds of years later - have anything do with the subject at hand?) – Meir Jan 28 '19 at 17:27
-2

May be that the explanation is very obvious.

the point is how did the controversy begin. The machloket BH and BS started by Hillel and Shammai themselve. Even if most machloktot are between two bate midrashot, the spirit of this type of controversy is the spirit of Hillel and Shammai. The mishna addressed the paradigm. So it's right to write מחלוקת הלל ושמאי.

kouty
  • 22,732
  • 3
  • 29
  • 58
  • 1
    I'm not seeing how this answers the question, esp. the 2nd question. – DanF Jul 11 '16 at 15:10
  • @DanF I am not sure but I want to say that the BH BS machloket may be called H&S machloket because they initiated the BH & BS machloket. The quality of the beginning is important as Amnon and Tamar, David & Yehonatan. So here specially, the Tana want to call the whole machloktot BH & BS H&S. I am not sure that it is true – kouty Jul 11 '16 at 15:37