![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}
Maseches Shabbos Daf 14
May. 31st, 2020 03:49 pmDaf 14
Ooh, more fascinating history here!
A snippet from Perek 1 of Pirkei Avot, which records the intellectual genealogy of Israel from Moses transmitting the law at Sinai:
Antigonus a man of Socho received [the oral tradition] from Shimon the Righteous...
Yose ben Yoezer (a man) of Zeredah and Yose ben Yohanan [a man] of Jerusalem received [the oral tradition] from them...
Joshua ben Perahiah and Nittai the Arbelite received [the oral tradition] from them...
Judah ben Tabbai and Shimon ben Shetach received [the oral tradition] from them...
Shemaiah and Abtalion received [the oral tradition] from them...
Hillel and Shammai received [the oral tradition] from them...
Rabban Yohanan ben Zakkai received [the oral tradition] from Hillel and Shammai...
Rabban Yohanan ben Zakkai had five disciples and they were these: Rabbi Eliezer ben Hyrcanus, Rabbi Joshua ben Hananiah, Rabbi Yose, the priest, Rabbi Shimon ben Nethaneel and Rabbi Eleazar ben Arach...
Pirkei Avot sort of stops the genealogy there, though it continues to mention more Rabbis from the Mishnaic period. The Tannaim, the Rabbis who are the central figures of the Mishna, start with the students of Hillel and Shammai (around the year 0 CE) and progress through to the codification of the Mishna (around 200CE). we hear lots from all of them in the Mishna, and we hear a lot from Beis Hillel and Beis Shammai, but we don't hear much from the Rabbis from earlier on. But here, as part of analyzing the enactments of Beis Shammai, we get a baraisa citing earlier Rabbanim.
The baraisa gathers together specific Rabbinic enactments from these earlier Rabbis. It mentions enactments by Yose ben Yoezer and Yose ben Yohanan, Shimon ben Shetach, and ultimately Hillel and Shammai. Later on the Gemara cites Rav Yehuda's teaching of a Rabbinic style gezeirah that he says dates back to King Solomon.
The Gemara, which was put together centuries after the Mishna, seems generally to not know all that much about this period. They have these sketchy baraitot that a particular Rabbi was responsible for imposing a certain gezeirah, but they also have much clearer and more specific halacha from Tannaim that covers similar territory, so a lot of the daf is about trying to understand what was the original gezeirah from the pre-Tannaitic sage and what was later clarification.
But I don't think they're making the distinction for the reason they normally do? Normally the Gemara is careful to distinguish between Tannaitic and Amoraic opinions because an Amora can argue on Amoraic opinions, but they can't (directly) argue on Tannaitic opinions. Here, I don't think they're trying to make the distinction in order to understand any significant halachic or meta-halachic consequence of a law being Pre-Tannaitic or Tannaitic, as the Amoraim can't argue on it either way. I just think the intellectual genealogy matters to them, that these Pre-Tannaitic figures are legendary figures to them and they're trying to understand what they taught to link back to the history of the law.
Ooh, more fascinating history here!
A snippet from Perek 1 of Pirkei Avot, which records the intellectual genealogy of Israel from Moses transmitting the law at Sinai:
Antigonus a man of Socho received [the oral tradition] from Shimon the Righteous...
Yose ben Yoezer (a man) of Zeredah and Yose ben Yohanan [a man] of Jerusalem received [the oral tradition] from them...
Joshua ben Perahiah and Nittai the Arbelite received [the oral tradition] from them...
Judah ben Tabbai and Shimon ben Shetach received [the oral tradition] from them...
Shemaiah and Abtalion received [the oral tradition] from them...
Hillel and Shammai received [the oral tradition] from them...
Rabban Yohanan ben Zakkai received [the oral tradition] from Hillel and Shammai...
Rabban Yohanan ben Zakkai had five disciples and they were these: Rabbi Eliezer ben Hyrcanus, Rabbi Joshua ben Hananiah, Rabbi Yose, the priest, Rabbi Shimon ben Nethaneel and Rabbi Eleazar ben Arach...
Pirkei Avot sort of stops the genealogy there, though it continues to mention more Rabbis from the Mishnaic period. The Tannaim, the Rabbis who are the central figures of the Mishna, start with the students of Hillel and Shammai (around the year 0 CE) and progress through to the codification of the Mishna (around 200CE). we hear lots from all of them in the Mishna, and we hear a lot from Beis Hillel and Beis Shammai, but we don't hear much from the Rabbis from earlier on. But here, as part of analyzing the enactments of Beis Shammai, we get a baraisa citing earlier Rabbanim.
The baraisa gathers together specific Rabbinic enactments from these earlier Rabbis. It mentions enactments by Yose ben Yoezer and Yose ben Yohanan, Shimon ben Shetach, and ultimately Hillel and Shammai. Later on the Gemara cites Rav Yehuda's teaching of a Rabbinic style gezeirah that he says dates back to King Solomon.
The Gemara, which was put together centuries after the Mishna, seems generally to not know all that much about this period. They have these sketchy baraitot that a particular Rabbi was responsible for imposing a certain gezeirah, but they also have much clearer and more specific halacha from Tannaim that covers similar territory, so a lot of the daf is about trying to understand what was the original gezeirah from the pre-Tannaitic sage and what was later clarification.
But I don't think they're making the distinction for the reason they normally do? Normally the Gemara is careful to distinguish between Tannaitic and Amoraic opinions because an Amora can argue on Amoraic opinions, but they can't (directly) argue on Tannaitic opinions. Here, I don't think they're trying to make the distinction in order to understand any significant halachic or meta-halachic consequence of a law being Pre-Tannaitic or Tannaitic, as the Amoraim can't argue on it either way. I just think the intellectual genealogy matters to them, that these Pre-Tannaitic figures are legendary figures to them and they're trying to understand what they taught to link back to the history of the law.