How can Bet Shamai argue on Shamai?

Clash Royale CLAN TAG#URR8PPP

up vote
3
down vote

favorite

How do we explain that Bet Shammai is documented as arguing on their teacher Shammai?

I didn't notice any of the classic Meforshim discussing this peculiarity.

There are at least 4 documented cases in Mishnayot:

Eduyoth 1:7:

בֵּית שַׁמַּאי אוֹמְרִים, רֹבַע עֲצָמוֹת מִן הָעֲצָמִים, בֵּין מִשְּׁנַיִם בֵּין מִשְּׁלֹשָׁה. וּבֵית הִלֵּל אוֹמְרִים, רֹבַע עֲצָמוֹת מִן הַגְּוִיָּה, מֵרֹב הַבִּנְיָן אוֹ מֵרֹב הַמִּנְיָן. שַׁמַּאי אוֹמֵר, אֲפִלּוּ מֵעֶצֶם אֶחָד:‏

Eduyoth 1:8:

כַּרְשִׁינֵי תְרוּמָה, בֵּית שַׁמַּאי אוֹמְרִים, שׁוֹרִין וְשָׁפִין בְּטָהֳרָה, וּמַאֲכִילִין בְּטֻמְאָה. בֵּית הִלֵּל אוֹמְרִים, שׁוֹרִין בְּטָהֳרָה, וְשָׁפִין וּמַאֲכִילִין בְּטֻמְאָה. שַׁמַּאי אוֹמֵר, יֵאָכְלוּ צָרִיד. רַבִּי עֲקִיבָא אוֹמֵר, כָּל מַעֲשֵׂיהֶם בְּטֻמְאָה:‏

Twice in Eduyoth 1:11 - which is also Keilim 22:4:

כִּסֵּא שֶׁל כַּלָּה שֶׁנִּטְּלוּ חִפּוּיָיו, בֵּית שַׁמַּאי מְטַמְּאִין, וּבֵית הִלֵּל מְטַהֲרִין. שַׁמַּאי אוֹמֵר, אַף מַלְבֵּן שֶׁל כִּסֵּא טָמֵא.‏
כִּסֵּא שֶׁקְּבָעוֹ בַעֲרֵבָה, בֵּית שַׁמַּאי מְטַמְּאִין, וּבֵית הִלֵּל מְטַהֲרִין. שַׁמַּאי אוֹמֵר, אַף הֶעָשׂוּי בָּהּ:‏

All the more fascinating that it's in tractate Eduyot, meaning that somebody actively testified as to the veracity of the content of the Mishna in front of a full Bet haMedrash.

mishna beis-shammai eduyot

share|improve this question

asked 1 hour ago

Danny Schoemann

32.4k360154

• 
  
  
  

  
  

  
  
  
  
  
  

  
  1:8 is also Maaser Sheini 2:4
  – DonielF
  1 hour ago
  

  
  
  
  


• 
  
  
  

  
  

  
  
  
  
  
  

  
  I think your terminology of "arguing" is somewhat misleading. It's just that R' Yehudah in the Mishnah brings the Braysos (the statements) in their names!
  – Al Berko
  1 hour ago
  

  
  
  
  


• 
  
  
  

  
  1
  

  
  
  
  
  
  

  
  Also "Beyt Shammai" spans over 300 years. Can't the following generations Lechadesh something over their founder? How about R' Eliezer that was also Shmuti (of B"S) - can he say something on his own?
  – Al Berko
  1 hour ago
  

  
  
  
  


• 
  
  
  

  
  

  
  
  
  
  
  

  
  Can this question be expanded to "how far can a student deviate from his Rabbi"? It is a good question. I think that in practice, despite the spiritual Klal of following one's Rabbi, there's no such obligation, moreover, if it is לשם שמים one is compelled to object his Rabbi (Kiddushin 30 something)
  – Al Berko
  56 mins ago
  

  
  
  
  

add a comment | 

up vote
3
down vote

favorite

How do we explain that Bet Shammai is documented as arguing on their teacher Shammai?

I didn't notice any of the classic Meforshim discussing this peculiarity.

There are at least 4 documented cases in Mishnayot:

Eduyoth 1:7:

בֵּית שַׁמַּאי אוֹמְרִים, רֹבַע עֲצָמוֹת מִן הָעֲצָמִים, בֵּין מִשְּׁנַיִם בֵּין מִשְּׁלֹשָׁה. וּבֵית הִלֵּל אוֹמְרִים, רֹבַע עֲצָמוֹת מִן הַגְּוִיָּה, מֵרֹב הַבִּנְיָן אוֹ מֵרֹב הַמִּנְיָן. שַׁמַּאי אוֹמֵר, אֲפִלּוּ מֵעֶצֶם אֶחָד:‏

Eduyoth 1:8:

כַּרְשִׁינֵי תְרוּמָה, בֵּית שַׁמַּאי אוֹמְרִים, שׁוֹרִין וְשָׁפִין בְּטָהֳרָה, וּמַאֲכִילִין בְּטֻמְאָה. בֵּית הִלֵּל אוֹמְרִים, שׁוֹרִין בְּטָהֳרָה, וְשָׁפִין וּמַאֲכִילִין בְּטֻמְאָה. שַׁמַּאי אוֹמֵר, יֵאָכְלוּ צָרִיד. רַבִּי עֲקִיבָא אוֹמֵר, כָּל מַעֲשֵׂיהֶם בְּטֻמְאָה:‏

Twice in Eduyoth 1:11 - which is also Keilim 22:4:

כִּסֵּא שֶׁל כַּלָּה שֶׁנִּטְּלוּ חִפּוּיָיו, בֵּית שַׁמַּאי מְטַמְּאִין, וּבֵית הִלֵּל מְטַהֲרִין. שַׁמַּאי אוֹמֵר, אַף מַלְבֵּן שֶׁל כִּסֵּא טָמֵא.‏
כִּסֵּא שֶׁקְּבָעוֹ בַעֲרֵבָה, בֵּית שַׁמַּאי מְטַמְּאִין, וּבֵית הִלֵּל מְטַהֲרִין. שַׁמַּאי אוֹמֵר, אַף הֶעָשׂוּי בָּהּ:‏

All the more fascinating that it's in tractate Eduyot, meaning that somebody actively testified as to the veracity of the content of the Mishna in front of a full Bet haMedrash.

mishna beis-shammai eduyot

share|improve this question

asked 1 hour ago

Danny Schoemann

32.4k360154

• 
  
  
  

  
  

  
  
  
  
  
  

  
  1:8 is also Maaser Sheini 2:4
  – DonielF
  1 hour ago
  

  
  
  
  


• 
  
  
  

  
  

  
  
  
  
  
  

  
  I think your terminology of "arguing" is somewhat misleading. It's just that R' Yehudah in the Mishnah brings the Braysos (the statements) in their names!
  – Al Berko
  1 hour ago
  

  
  
  
  


• 
  
  
  

  
  1
  

  
  
  
  
  
  

  
  Also "Beyt Shammai" spans over 300 years. Can't the following generations Lechadesh something over their founder? How about R' Eliezer that was also Shmuti (of B"S) - can he say something on his own?
  – Al Berko
  1 hour ago
  

  
  
  
  


• 
  
  
  

  
  

  
  
  
  
  
  

  
  Can this question be expanded to "how far can a student deviate from his Rabbi"? It is a good question. I think that in practice, despite the spiritual Klal of following one's Rabbi, there's no such obligation, moreover, if it is לשם שמים one is compelled to object his Rabbi (Kiddushin 30 something)
  – Al Berko
  56 mins ago
  

  
  
  
  

add a comment | 

up vote
3
down vote

favorite

up vote
3
down vote

favorite

How do we explain that Bet Shammai is documented as arguing on their teacher Shammai?

I didn't notice any of the classic Meforshim discussing this peculiarity.

There are at least 4 documented cases in Mishnayot:

Eduyoth 1:7:

בֵּית שַׁמַּאי אוֹמְרִים, רֹבַע עֲצָמוֹת מִן הָעֲצָמִים, בֵּין מִשְּׁנַיִם בֵּין מִשְּׁלֹשָׁה. וּבֵית הִלֵּל אוֹמְרִים, רֹבַע עֲצָמוֹת מִן הַגְּוִיָּה, מֵרֹב הַבִּנְיָן אוֹ מֵרֹב הַמִּנְיָן. שַׁמַּאי אוֹמֵר, אֲפִלּוּ מֵעֶצֶם אֶחָד:‏

Eduyoth 1:8:

כַּרְשִׁינֵי תְרוּמָה, בֵּית שַׁמַּאי אוֹמְרִים, שׁוֹרִין וְשָׁפִין בְּטָהֳרָה, וּמַאֲכִילִין בְּטֻמְאָה. בֵּית הִלֵּל אוֹמְרִים, שׁוֹרִין בְּטָהֳרָה, וְשָׁפִין וּמַאֲכִילִין בְּטֻמְאָה. שַׁמַּאי אוֹמֵר, יֵאָכְלוּ צָרִיד. רַבִּי עֲקִיבָא אוֹמֵר, כָּל מַעֲשֵׂיהֶם בְּטֻמְאָה:‏

Twice in Eduyoth 1:11 - which is also Keilim 22:4:

כִּסֵּא שֶׁל כַּלָּה שֶׁנִּטְּלוּ חִפּוּיָיו, בֵּית שַׁמַּאי מְטַמְּאִין, וּבֵית הִלֵּל מְטַהֲרִין. שַׁמַּאי אוֹמֵר, אַף מַלְבֵּן שֶׁל כִּסֵּא טָמֵא.‏
כִּסֵּא שֶׁקְּבָעוֹ בַעֲרֵבָה, בֵּית שַׁמַּאי מְטַמְּאִין, וּבֵית הִלֵּל מְטַהֲרִין. שַׁמַּאי אוֹמֵר, אַף הֶעָשׂוּי בָּהּ:‏

All the more fascinating that it's in tractate Eduyot, meaning that somebody actively testified as to the veracity of the content of the Mishna in front of a full Bet haMedrash.

mishna beis-shammai eduyot

share|improve this question

asked 1 hour ago

Danny Schoemann

32.4k360154

How do we explain that Bet Shammai is documented as arguing on their teacher Shammai?

I didn't notice any of the classic Meforshim discussing this peculiarity.

There are at least 4 documented cases in Mishnayot:

Eduyoth 1:7:

בֵּית שַׁמַּאי אוֹמְרִים, רֹבַע עֲצָמוֹת מִן הָעֲצָמִים, בֵּין מִשְּׁנַיִם בֵּין מִשְּׁלֹשָׁה. וּבֵית הִלֵּל אוֹמְרִים, רֹבַע עֲצָמוֹת מִן הַגְּוִיָּה, מֵרֹב הַבִּנְיָן אוֹ מֵרֹב הַמִּנְיָן. שַׁמַּאי אוֹמֵר, אֲפִלּוּ מֵעֶצֶם אֶחָד:‏

Eduyoth 1:8:

כַּרְשִׁינֵי תְרוּמָה, בֵּית שַׁמַּאי אוֹמְרִים, שׁוֹרִין וְשָׁפִין בְּטָהֳרָה, וּמַאֲכִילִין בְּטֻמְאָה. בֵּית הִלֵּל אוֹמְרִים, שׁוֹרִין בְּטָהֳרָה, וְשָׁפִין וּמַאֲכִילִין בְּטֻמְאָה. שַׁמַּאי אוֹמֵר, יֵאָכְלוּ צָרִיד. רַבִּי עֲקִיבָא אוֹמֵר, כָּל מַעֲשֵׂיהֶם בְּטֻמְאָה:‏

Twice in Eduyoth 1:11 - which is also Keilim 22:4:

כִּסֵּא שֶׁל כַּלָּה שֶׁנִּטְּלוּ חִפּוּיָיו, בֵּית שַׁמַּאי מְטַמְּאִין, וּבֵית הִלֵּל מְטַהֲרִין. שַׁמַּאי אוֹמֵר, אַף מַלְבֵּן שֶׁל כִּסֵּא טָמֵא.‏
כִּסֵּא שֶׁקְּבָעוֹ בַעֲרֵבָה, בֵּית שַׁמַּאי מְטַמְּאִין, וּבֵית הִלֵּל מְטַהֲרִין. שַׁמַּאי אוֹמֵר, אַף הֶעָשׂוּי בָּהּ:‏

All the more fascinating that it's in tractate Eduyot, meaning that somebody actively testified as to the veracity of the content of the Mishna in front of a full Bet haMedrash.

mishna beis-shammai eduyot

mishna beis-shammai eduyot

share|improve this question

asked 1 hour ago

Danny Schoemann

32.4k360154

share|improve this question

asked 1 hour ago

Danny Schoemann

32.4k360154

share|improve this question

share|improve this question

asked 1 hour ago

Danny Schoemann

32.4k360154

asked 1 hour ago

Danny Schoemann

32.4k360154

asked 1 hour ago

Danny Schoemann

32.4k360154

32.4k360154

• 
  
  
  

  
  

  
  
  
  
  
  

  
  1:8 is also Maaser Sheini 2:4
  – DonielF
  1 hour ago
  

  
  
  
  


• 
  
  
  

  
  

  
  
  
  
  
  

  
  I think your terminology of "arguing" is somewhat misleading. It's just that R' Yehudah in the Mishnah brings the Braysos (the statements) in their names!
  – Al Berko
  1 hour ago
  

  
  
  
  


• 
  
  
  

  
  1
  

  
  
  
  
  
  

  
  Also "Beyt Shammai" spans over 300 years. Can't the following generations Lechadesh something over their founder? How about R' Eliezer that was also Shmuti (of B"S) - can he say something on his own?
  – Al Berko
  1 hour ago
  

  
  
  
  


• 
  
  
  

  
  

  
  
  
  
  
  

  
  Can this question be expanded to "how far can a student deviate from his Rabbi"? It is a good question. I think that in practice, despite the spiritual Klal of following one's Rabbi, there's no such obligation, moreover, if it is לשם שמים one is compelled to object his Rabbi (Kiddushin 30 something)
  – Al Berko
  56 mins ago
  

  
  
  
  

add a comment | 

• 
  
  
  

  
  

  
  
  
  
  
  

  
  1:8 is also Maaser Sheini 2:4
  – DonielF
  1 hour ago
  

  
  
  
  


• 
  
  
  

  
  

  
  
  
  
  
  

  
  I think your terminology of "arguing" is somewhat misleading. It's just that R' Yehudah in the Mishnah brings the Braysos (the statements) in their names!
  – Al Berko
  1 hour ago
  

  
  
  
  


• 
  
  
  

  
  1
  

  
  
  
  
  
  

  
  Also "Beyt Shammai" spans over 300 years. Can't the following generations Lechadesh something over their founder? How about R' Eliezer that was also Shmuti (of B"S) - can he say something on his own?
  – Al Berko
  1 hour ago
  

  
  
  
  


• 
  
  
  

  
  

  
  
  
  
  
  

  
  Can this question be expanded to "how far can a student deviate from his Rabbi"? It is a good question. I think that in practice, despite the spiritual Klal of following one's Rabbi, there's no such obligation, moreover, if it is לשם שמים one is compelled to object his Rabbi (Kiddushin 30 something)
  – Al Berko
  56 mins ago
  

  
  
  
  

1:8 is also Maaser Sheini 2:4
– DonielF
1 hour ago

1:8 is also Maaser Sheini 2:4
– DonielF
1 hour ago

I think your terminology of "arguing" is somewhat misleading. It's just that R' Yehudah in the Mishnah brings the Braysos (the statements) in their names!
– Al Berko
1 hour ago

I think your terminology of "arguing" is somewhat misleading. It's just that R' Yehudah in the Mishnah brings the Braysos (the statements) in their names!
– Al Berko
1 hour ago

1

1

Also "Beyt Shammai" spans over 300 years. Can't the following generations Lechadesh something over their founder? How about R' Eliezer that was also Shmuti (of B"S) - can he say something on his own?
– Al Berko
1 hour ago

Also "Beyt Shammai" spans over 300 years. Can't the following generations Lechadesh something over their founder? How about R' Eliezer that was also Shmuti (of B"S) - can he say something on his own?
– Al Berko
1 hour ago

Can this question be expanded to "how far can a student deviate from his Rabbi"? It is a good question. I think that in practice, despite the spiritual Klal of following one's Rabbi, there's no such obligation, moreover, if it is לשם שמים one is compelled to object his Rabbi (Kiddushin 30 something)
– Al Berko
56 mins ago

Can this question be expanded to "how far can a student deviate from his Rabbi"? It is a good question. I think that in practice, despite the spiritual Klal of following one's Rabbi, there's no such obligation, moreover, if it is לשם שמים one is compelled to object his Rabbi (Kiddushin 30 something)
– Al Berko
56 mins ago

add a comment | 

1 Answer
1

active

oldest

votes

up vote
3
down vote

This phenomenon is described by R. Shimshon of Chinon in his Sefer HaKeritot (Leshon Limmudim, Sha'ar Sheni, 73).

He suggests that:

ושמא בילדותו תנא להו כמו שאמרו ב"ש וחזר בו בזקנותו והמשנה לא זזה ממקומה.‏

Perhaps he taught to them when he was younger as is stated by Beit Shammai, and then he changed his mind when he was older, but the [original] mishnah was left in place.

So, it's not that Beit Shammai are arguing on Shammai. Rather, Beit Shammai are presenting Shammai's original view, and the view ascribed by the mishnah directly to Shammai is his final position.

He also points out that this would explain why the students' position is presented first, because it was the original view that Shammai arrived at.

share|improve this answer

answered 13 mins ago

Joel K

9,0561666

• 
  
  
  

  
  

  
  
  
  
  
  

  
  This is very counterintuitive. You'd think if he'd changed his mind the students' position which persists would be the final one, while the original statement in his name somehow got retained as such and it was tacked on extra at the end because it's just a historical oddity.
  – Double AA♦
  6 mins ago
  

  
  
  
  

add a comment | 

1 Answer
1

active

oldest

votes

1 Answer
1

active

oldest

votes

active

oldest

votes

active

oldest

votes

up vote
3
down vote

This phenomenon is described by R. Shimshon of Chinon in his Sefer HaKeritot (Leshon Limmudim, Sha'ar Sheni, 73).

He suggests that:

ושמא בילדותו תנא להו כמו שאמרו ב"ש וחזר בו בזקנותו והמשנה לא זזה ממקומה.‏

Perhaps he taught to them when he was younger as is stated by Beit Shammai, and then he changed his mind when he was older, but the [original] mishnah was left in place.

So, it's not that Beit Shammai are arguing on Shammai. Rather, Beit Shammai are presenting Shammai's original view, and the view ascribed by the mishnah directly to Shammai is his final position.

He also points out that this would explain why the students' position is presented first, because it was the original view that Shammai arrived at.

share|improve this answer

answered 13 mins ago

Joel K

9,0561666

• 
  
  
  

  
  

  
  
  
  
  
  

  
  This is very counterintuitive. You'd think if he'd changed his mind the students' position which persists would be the final one, while the original statement in his name somehow got retained as such and it was tacked on extra at the end because it's just a historical oddity.
  – Double AA♦
  6 mins ago
  

  
  
  
  

add a comment | 

up vote
3
down vote

This phenomenon is described by R. Shimshon of Chinon in his Sefer HaKeritot (Leshon Limmudim, Sha'ar Sheni, 73).

He suggests that:

ושמא בילדותו תנא להו כמו שאמרו ב"ש וחזר בו בזקנותו והמשנה לא זזה ממקומה.‏

Perhaps he taught to them when he was younger as is stated by Beit Shammai, and then he changed his mind when he was older, but the [original] mishnah was left in place.

So, it's not that Beit Shammai are arguing on Shammai. Rather, Beit Shammai are presenting Shammai's original view, and the view ascribed by the mishnah directly to Shammai is his final position.

He also points out that this would explain why the students' position is presented first, because it was the original view that Shammai arrived at.

share|improve this answer

answered 13 mins ago

Joel K

9,0561666

• 
  
  
  

  
  

  
  
  
  
  
  

  
  This is very counterintuitive. You'd think if he'd changed his mind the students' position which persists would be the final one, while the original statement in his name somehow got retained as such and it was tacked on extra at the end because it's just a historical oddity.
  – Double AA♦
  6 mins ago
  

  
  
  
  

add a comment | 

up vote
3
down vote

up vote
3
down vote

This phenomenon is described by R. Shimshon of Chinon in his Sefer HaKeritot (Leshon Limmudim, Sha'ar Sheni, 73).

He suggests that:

ושמא בילדותו תנא להו כמו שאמרו ב"ש וחזר בו בזקנותו והמשנה לא זזה ממקומה.‏

Perhaps he taught to them when he was younger as is stated by Beit Shammai, and then he changed his mind when he was older, but the [original] mishnah was left in place.

So, it's not that Beit Shammai are arguing on Shammai. Rather, Beit Shammai are presenting Shammai's original view, and the view ascribed by the mishnah directly to Shammai is his final position.

He also points out that this would explain why the students' position is presented first, because it was the original view that Shammai arrived at.

share|improve this answer

answered 13 mins ago

Joel K

9,0561666

This phenomenon is described by R. Shimshon of Chinon in his Sefer HaKeritot (Leshon Limmudim, Sha'ar Sheni, 73).

He suggests that:

ושמא בילדותו תנא להו כמו שאמרו ב"ש וחזר בו בזקנותו והמשנה לא זזה ממקומה.‏

Perhaps he taught to them when he was younger as is stated by Beit Shammai, and then he changed his mind when he was older, but the [original] mishnah was left in place.

So, it's not that Beit Shammai are arguing on Shammai. Rather, Beit Shammai are presenting Shammai's original view, and the view ascribed by the mishnah directly to Shammai is his final position.

He also points out that this would explain why the students' position is presented first, because it was the original view that Shammai arrived at.

share|improve this answer

answered 13 mins ago

Joel K

9,0561666

share|improve this answer

share|improve this answer

answered 13 mins ago

Joel K

9,0561666

answered 13 mins ago

Joel K

9,0561666

answered 13 mins ago

Joel K

9,0561666

9,0561666

• 
  
  
  

  
  

  
  
  
  
  
  

  
  This is very counterintuitive. You'd think if he'd changed his mind the students' position which persists would be the final one, while the original statement in his name somehow got retained as such and it was tacked on extra at the end because it's just a historical oddity.
  – Double AA♦
  6 mins ago
  

  
  
  
  

add a comment | 

• 
  
  
  

  
  

  
  
  
  
  
  

  
  This is very counterintuitive. You'd think if he'd changed his mind the students' position which persists would be the final one, while the original statement in his name somehow got retained as such and it was tacked on extra at the end because it's just a historical oddity.
  – Double AA♦
  6 mins ago
  

  
  
  
  

This is very counterintuitive. You'd think if he'd changed his mind the students' position which persists would be the final one, while the original statement in his name somehow got retained as such and it was tacked on extra at the end because it's just a historical oddity.
– Double AA♦
6 mins ago

This is very counterintuitive. You'd think if he'd changed his mind the students' position which persists would be the final one, while the original statement in his name somehow got retained as such and it was tacked on extra at the end because it's just a historical oddity.
– Double AA♦
6 mins ago

add a comment |