Two Points of View

There is a Mishnah in Bava Metzia that at first glance seems understandable. Yet when the Gemara (41a) tries to elucidate it, it seems that the first law in the anonymous Mishnah represents the opinion of Rebbe Yishmael, while the very next law in the anonymous Mishnah represents the opposing view of Rebbe Akiva. It would indeed be rare for the very same Mishnah to reflect two opposing views without indicating that.

However, Rebbe Yochanan concludes that though it may be difficult to accept, this is, in fact, the correct explanation of the Mishnah, and the Mishnah reflects two different opinions. Rebbe Yochanan exclaimed, “If anyone can explain the entire Mishnah as following one point of view, I will carry his clothing behind him to the bathhouse.” Rebbe Yochanan was in effect saying that if someone is so great that he can come up with an alternate understanding of the Mishnah, he would accept him as his rebbe and carry his clothing after him.

Why didn’t Rebbe Yochanan just espouse this thought clearly and exclaim, “If someone explains this Mishnah, I will attend his lectures and study under him?”

Rebbe Aharon Levine, Hy”d, pointed out that Rebbe Yochanan himself stated in Berachos that serving talmidei chachamim is even greater than learning under them. He was therefore stating that he would fulfill his own dictum and serve his rebbe. Rashi on Chumash (Vayikra 25:39) explains that one who purchases an eved Ivri, a Jewish indentured servant, may not direct him to perform menial tasks. The very example Rashi offers of a menial task is asking the eved Ivri to carry his master’s clothing to the bathhouse. Rebbe Yochanan was exclaiming that if he indeed found a rebbe that was greater than him, he would completely humble himself before the rebbe to the point that he would carry his clothes to the bathhouse.

There is an intriguing incident recorded in the Sefer Chemda Genuza. HaGaon Rebbe Heschel (1578-1648) was learning the aforementioned Mishnah. He came up with an explanation of the Mishnah by which the entire Mishnah represents one opinion. At that point, Rebbe Heschel remarked, “Now Rebbe Yochanan can fulfill his words” (i.e., he can carry my clothes after me to the bathhouse). Immediately, his candle blew out. He asked his talmid, Rav Shabbatai HaKohen (1621-1662), also known as the Shach, to relight the candle at one of the neighbor’s houses. The Shach was surprised to find that all the houses were dark, save one. He approached the last house and found an old man studying by candlelight. When the Shach approached him, the man said, “I am Rebbe Yochanan. Tell your rebbe that his explanation is in error for such and such reason. Further, tell your rebbe that as a punishment for speaking disparagingly, he should choose to die without children or choose to die without publishing a sefer.” Rebbe Heschel chose to die without publishing a sefer. (The story does not record the explanation of the Mishnah that Rebbe Heschel proposed.)

Rebbe Heschel’s seforim were published posthumously.

As an interesting postscript to the above story: it is worthwhile to note that the Sm’a (C.M. 355:6) expresses a view on a subject that is relevant to the above Mishnah. The Sm’a was written by Rebbe Yehoshua Falk. The Shach (355:1) rejects the opinion of the Sm’a. He argues that if one would follow the opinion of the Sm’a to its logical conclusion, it would be possible to explain the aforementioned Mishnah according to a single opinion – but Rebbe Yochanan implied that such an explanation was not possible. Perhaps Rebbe Heschel proposed explaining the Mishnah following the opinion of the Sm’a. Rebbe Heschel’s student, the Shach, having witnessed the above incident, cautioned his readers against following the opinion of the Sm’a.