Rabbi Yishmael (ben Elisha)

The Question of Historical Identity and Chronological Placement

The figure of Rabbi Yishmael (whose full name in rabbinic literature is Rabbi Yishmael ben Elisha) stands as one of the pillars of the Tannaitic period, but tracing his life raises complex historiographical and textual questions.^[1] The Talmudic and midrashic sources at times present two figures interwoven with each other: the first is Rabbi Yishmael ben Elisha the High Priest, who was active at the end of the days of the Second Temple and ministered in it, and who belongs to the first generation of the Tannaim ^{[1, 2]}; and the second is Rabbi Yishmael, the colleague and foremost disputant of Rabbi Akiva, who was active mainly in the third generation of the Tannaim, after the destruction.^{[1, 3]}

In the scholarly literature and in the book "Seder ha-Dorot" the distinction is proposed that Rabbi Yishmael the Tanna, Rabbi Akiva's colleague, was in fact the grandson of Rabbi Yishmael ben Elisha the High Priest.^[1] Nevertheless, in the aggadic literature the boundaries between the two are blurred, as is evident in various stories attributed indiscriminately to both figures, such as the story of the captivity and death of his son and daughter.^[1] To clarify the historical complexity, a comparison between the two figures as they emerge from the sources is presented below:

Rabbi Yishmael the Tanna was a scion of a wealthy and distinguished family of high priests, and his father held the exalted office on the eve of the destruction of the Temple.^[4] As a young boy he experienced the horrors of the destruction and was taken captive to Rome.^[4] During his captivity he was ransomed by Rabbi Yehoshua ben Hananiah, who recognized his genius and exceptional talent.^[4] Under Rabbi Yehoshua's guidance, Rabbi Yishmael joined the study hall at Yavneh, which had been founded by Rabban Yochanan ben Zakkai even before the destruction of the Second Temple.^[4] There he quickly became one of the outstanding Torah greats of the generation, whose work was characterized by an inclination toward the plain meaning of Scripture, a close connection to the practical needs of the public, and the shaping of an orderly hermeneutical method that changed the face of halakhic midrash.^{[3, 6]}

The Mystical Dimension and His Tragic End among the Ten Martyrs

Alongside his halakhic and rational work, Rabbi Yishmael is described in the sources as a figure of exceptional spiritual and mystical stature. The Babylonian Talmud describes vividly how Rabbi Yishmael the High Priest entered the innermost sanctum—the Holy of Holies—in the midst of Yom Kippur to burn the incense.^{[1, 2, 7]} In this sublime moment he beheld a divine revelation of "Akatriel Yah, the Lord of Hosts," seated upon a high and exalted throne, and he was even asked by the Creator to bless Him.^{[1, 7]} Rabbi Yishmael's blessing—that God's mercy should overcome His anger and that He should deal with His children beyond the letter of the law—reflects the essence of his spiritual being, which places the attribute of mercy and the love of Israel at the center of the relationship between man and God.^{[1, 3]}

This mystical dimension also accompanies the story of Rabbi Yishmael's tragic death; he is counted in the sources as one of the Ten Martyrs who were executed by the Roman government for their devotion to the Torah and the commandments.^{[1, 8]} According to the midrashic tradition, when the decree of persecution was issued, Rabbi Yishmael used his knowledge of the Ineffable Name and ascended to heaven to inquire whether the decree had been sealed on high, and there he was told that it was indeed an irrevocable decree of fate.^[1] The prophecy of his death had been proclaimed even earlier by Shmuel ha-Katan at the hour of his passing, when he foretold the killing by the sword of "Shimon and Yishmael" (Rabban Shimon ben Gamliel and Rabbi Yishmael) and the troubles that were about to befall the people of Israel.^[1]

The execution of Rabbi Yishmael, which took place on the 25th of Sivan in the year 3828 from the creation of the world, is described in the aggadah as involving severe and cruel tortures.^{[1, 7]} On that occasion the sages were seated in pairs, and the first pair to be judged was Rabbi Yishmael and Rabban Shimon ben Gamliel the Elder.^[8] The Roman emperor cast lots between them as to who would be killed first.^[8] The lot fell on Rabban Shimon, who was killed by the sword, and Rabbi Yishmael wept over him.^{[1, 8]}

Rabbi Yishmael's extraordinary beauty, which was compared to the beauty of the ministering angels and was among the most beautiful in the world, caught the eye of the daughter of the Roman emperor.^{[1, 7]} After her father refused to spare the life of the Tanna because of his oath, the daughter asked that the skin of Rabbi Yishmael's face be flayed while he was still alive, so that she could preserve his likeness and gaze at it in place of a mirror.^{[1, 7]} The great Tanna underwent this horrifying torture until his soul departed.^[1]

The terrifying image of the flaying of his face left a deep impression, and the Talmud rules that one who sees Rabbi Yishmael in a dream should fear calamity.^[1] The aggadah relates that the emperor's daughter embalmed the skin of his face in balsam.^[1] According to the Amora Shmuel, a special festival was even celebrated in Rome once every seventy years, in which the skin of Rabbi Yishmael's face was put on a sound man who was mounted on a lame man, to symbolize the rule of the children of Esau over the children of Jacob.^[1] In the legend of the death of another Tanna, Rabbi Yishmael is seen in the World of Truth deciding a halakhic dispute between Rabbi Yehuda ben Bava and Rabbi Akiva, which expresses the continuation of his standing as a supreme halakhic authority even after his physical death.^[8]

The Hermeneutical Method of Midrash: "The Torah Spoke in the Language of Human Beings"

The greatest methodological dispute in the history of rabbinic literature is the one that arose between Rabbi Yishmael and Rabbi Akiva.^{[6, 9]} Whereas Rabbi Akiva developed a homiletical method assuming that every thorn, letter and superfluous word in the divine Torah carries independent halakhic meaning and contains inclusions, Rabbi Yishmael laid down the opposite hermeneutical foundation, based on the rule: "The Torah spoke in the language of human beings" (dibrah Torah ki-leshon benei adam).^{[3, 6, 10]} According to this view, the Torah is indeed divine in origin, but it was given to human beings in their language and in their natural style of speech.^{[6, 10]} Consequently, verbal doublings, superfluous letters or syntactic repetitions are nothing but stylistic devices customary in human language, and new halakhot are not to be derived from them.^{[6, 10]}

The mechanistic understanding of verbal doubling is explained thus: when a person commands his fellow to do something and wishes to urge him on, he doubles his words and commands him twice; so too Scripture doubled its language in order to urge, and not in order to produce a new halakhic inclusion.^[10] The midrash presents traditions according to which there is another version of this rule, formulated as "The Torah spoke in many idioms, and all of them must be expounded."^[10]

In the halakhic midrashim the rule "the Torah spoke in the language of human beings" is also used in broader senses, such as the analysis of various forms of address in Scripture that appear in human language.^[10] Likewise, a profound conceptual change took place in the interpretation of the rule among the Geonim and the Rishonim; they moved the rule from its original context (which dealt with halakhic verbal doubling) to the plane of philosophy and theology, and used it to explain that the anthropomorphic descriptions of God in Scripture are nothing but parable and figurative language meant to simplify intellectual concepts for human beings.^[10]

From this basic principle grew a number of distinctive interpretive rules of Rabbi Yishmael's study hall:

A passage that was repeated: In Rabbi Yishmael's view, a passage that was written once and then repeated elsewhere in the Torah was repeated only for the sake of the new detail or law introduced in it, and new halakhot are not to be learned from the repetition itself.^{[6, 7]} Rabbi Akiva, by contrast, expounded the very repetition as a sign of a halakhic inclusion.^[6]

The sentences of the Torah as a description of reality: Rabbi Yishmael held that not every statement in the Torah comes to impose an active halakhic obligation; there are sentences that merely indicate an existing fact or a possibility, whereas Rabbi Akiva tended to see every sentence as a binding instruction.^[6]

The rule "There is no earlier and later in the Torah": This hermeneutical principle, established by Rabbi Yishmael, holds that the order in which the passages of the Torah are written does not necessarily reflect historical chronological order, and the Torah may place the later before the earlier or the earlier after the later for substantive and stylistic reasons.^{[7, 11]}

A distinction between adjacent words and separate verses: The Acharonim disagreed regarding the scope of the rule "the Torah spoke in the language of human beings."^[10] Some hold that Rabbi Yishmael applied it only to doubled words adjacent to each other in the same sentence (such as "himmol yimmol" or "hikkaret tikkaret") ^{[9, 10]}, but that in different and distant verses containing doubled words, he too agrees that they are to be expounded.^[10] Others argue that the rule applies across the board, except in cases where there is explicit proof from the context that the doubling is not to be interpreted as the language of human beings.^[10]

The dispute between these two schools led to fateful legal decisions.^[9] A classic example is the discussion in Tractate Sanhedrin concerning the punishment of a priest's daughter who committed adultery, whose punishment is set in the Torah as burning ("she shall be burned with fire").^{[9, 12]} Rabbi Akiva sought to include a married priest's daughter in this punishment as well, by expounding the doubling "bat" ("daughter") and "u-vat" ("and the daughter").^{[9, 12]} Rabbi Yishmael's sharp response reflects the essence of his humanistic and rational method: "Because you expound bat and u-vat, shall we take this woman out to be burned?!"^{[9, 12]}

Rabbi Yishmael refused to rely on sophisticated linguistic maneuvers in order to be more stringent in capital cases, and raised a logical difficulty: if the derashah of "bat" and "u-vat" means to include the married woman, it should also include the unmarried one; and if it means to exclude the unmarried one, it should also exclude the married one.^[12] He therefore preferred to adhere to a logical gezerah shavah that limits the punishment to a betrothed maiden only.^{[9, 12]}

The Thirteen Principles by Which the Torah Is Expounded

As an alternative to Rabbi Akiva's local exegesis of words and letters, Rabbi Yishmael developed a system of methodical and logical tools of comparison known as "the thirteen principles by which the Torah is expounded."^{[5, 6, 13]} These principles, which appear in the famous baraita at the opening of the Sifra (Torat Kohanim), are an expansion and systematization of the seven principles laid down in his time by Hillel the Elder.^{[4, 6, 14]} The principles are based on internal logic, the comparison of texts and an orderly categorical structure.^{[5, 14]} Below is a detailed account of the thirteen principles that define Rabbi Yishmael's methods of midrash:

Rav Kook offered a philosophical and conceptual explanation for the uniqueness of the number thirteen in this context.^{[14, 15]} In his view, the number 10 symbolizes multiplicity that unites and rises to a comprehensive unity, while the number 3 symbolizes multiplicity dispersed into its particulars.^{[14, 15]} Their combination to create the number 13 (which is also the gematria of the word "echad," "one") indicates the absolute unity of the Torah, which blends perfectly the lofty conceptual whole with the abundance of particulars and practical deeds.^{[14, 15]}

The School of Rabbi Yishmael and the Halakhic Midrashim

The methodological differences between Rabbi Yishmael and Rabbi Akiva did not remain a personal polemic, but gave rise to two separate and extensive study halls—"the school of Rabbi Yishmael" (Devei Rabbi Yishmael) and "the school of Rabbi Akiva" (Devei Rabbi Akiva).^[6] These schools shaped and edited collections of halakhic midrashim that reflect the methods of study, the terminology and the modes of exegesis distinctive to each study hall.^[6] Whereas in the Babylonian Talmud the distinction between the techniques is at times blurred, in the Jerusalem Talmud the separation between the study halls is evident and clear-cut.^[6]

Midrashim attributed to the school of Rabbi Yishmael are characterized by consistent use of the principles by which the Torah is expounded, by striving for the plain meaning of Scripture, by the citing of many parables to explain the laws, and by clear and logical formulations.^{[3, 6, 17]} The most prominent work of the school is the Mekhilta de-Rabbi Yishmael on the book of Exodus.^{[17, 18]} The name "Mekhilta" means "measure" in Aramaic (since the translation of the biblical word "mesurah" is mekhilta), and it was borrowed for the midrash based on the principles by which the Torah is expounded.^[17] The sages sometimes used this name as a general designation for a particular tractate or mishnah.^[17]

The Mekhilta de-Rabbi Yishmael deals with the halakhic parts of the book of Exodus, from the portion of Bo to the portion of Vayakhel.^[18] The midrash is attributed to the students of Rabbi Yishmael, and was apparently edited by the students of Rabbi Yehuda ha-Nasi on the basis of an early midrash of the school of Rabbi Yishmael.^[18] Many of the statements that appear in it anonymously (without naming who said them) are in fact attributed to Rabbi Yishmael himself.^[18]

The scholar Rabbi Isaac Hirsch Weiss divides the midrashim of the Mekhilta into three main types:

• Midrashim that lie within the meaning of the text, which are by nature explanatory and plain expositions.^[17]
• Midrashim founded on rules that were essentially agreed upon and accepted among them.^[17]
• Midrashim that arose from the application of the principles by which the Torah is expounded.^[17]

The first chapter of the Mekhilta illustrates well the exegetical methods of the school.^[17] Thus, for example, the derashah "I might understand" (shome'a ani) is founded on the principle of two verses that contradict each other.^[17] The derashah "to Moses" is based on the principle of hekkesh (analogy).^[17] The halakha limiting the application of prophecy to "outside the city" is derived by means of a kal va-chomer (an a fortiori inference).^[17] The derashah on the word "lemor" ("saying") is based on the rule that wherever "lemor" is said it may be expounded, and the halakhot connected with "this is Nisan" are likewise founded on the resolution of two verses that contradict each other.^[17]

Historiographically, the first to mention the midrash by the name "Mekhilta" was the author of Halakhot Gedolot, who called it "Mekhilta de-Ve'eleh Shemot."^[17] Maimonides (Rambam), in his introduction to the Yad ha-Chazakah, noted that Rabbi Yishmael interpreted from "Ve'eleh Shemot" to the end of the Torah, but this statement apparently refers to "Sifrei Zuta," which is a kind of supplement to the Mekhilta, since the Mekhilta we possess covers only the book of Exodus from the portion of Bo to the portion of Vayakhel.^{[6, 17]}

A Social and Practical Worldview: Torah, Work and Love of Israel

Rabbi Yishmael's teaching is not limited to dry hermeneutical rules; it reflects a broad worldview, connected to human reality, full of compassion, and viewing positively the combination of material life and spiritual life.^{[3, 19]}

The Polemic on Torah and Livelihood: "Conduct Yourself with Them in the Way of the World"

One of the most famous and influential disputes in Tractate Berakhot deals with the relationship between Torah study on the one hand and work and livelihood on the other.^{[19, 20]} In this polemic Rabbi Yishmael and Rabbi Shimon bar Yochai stood at two opposite poles ^{[19, 20]}: Rashbi presented a radical idealistic position, according to which when the people of Israel do the will of God, their work is done by others, and a person must devote himself totally to Torah study without engaging in material matters.^{[19, 20]} Rabbi Yishmael presented a pragmatic and balanced approach, relying on the verse "and you shall gather in your grain," and declared: "Conduct yourself with them in the way of the world."^{[19, 20]} In Rabbi Yishmael's view, the conduct of the world requires combining Torah with work and livelihood, since one must not rely on miracles in everyday reality.^{[3, 19]}

Rashi explains that Rabbi Yishmael's approach does not stem from a lessening of the value of diligence in Torah, but on the contrary—from deep concern for the continuity of the Torah.^[19] Rabbi Yishmael understood that if the public at large tried to act like Rashbi, they would be left without bread, and would end up abandoning the Torah altogether out of existential distress; he therefore warned that without a worldly occupation, "you will end up neglecting the words of Torah."^[19]

This dispute has deep halakhic consequences for later generations. In Shenot Eliyahu by the Gra it is ruled that since the halakha follows Rabbi Yishmael, engaging in a worldly occupation (work and livelihood) is also considered the fulfillment of a commandment in its own right, and for that reason it overrides Torah study.^[19] In this context, Rabbenu Tam and the Ri proved from the words of the Mishnah "Torah study is good together with a worldly occupation" that work and livelihood are the main thing ("work is the main thing") and that Torah study is to be added to them, as they inferred from the wording of the Mishnah, which mentions these concepts first or places them on an equal footing.^[19]

Love of Israel and Sensitivity to Poverty

From Rabbi Yishmael's rulings and practices emerges the figure of a leader with exceptional social sensitivity toward the weak in society, and especially toward women living in poverty.^{[3, 21]} Tractate Nedarim relates the story of a man who vowed not to marry his sister's daughter because she was poor and her appearance was ugly.^{[21, 22]} Rabbi Yishmael took the girl into his house, saw to her grooming and beautification, and even paid for an expensive replacement gold tooth in place of a tooth that had fallen out.^[21] After her appearance had changed for the better, Rabbi Yishmael showed her to the man who had vowed and released the vow on the grounds that it was a "mistaken vow."^{[21, 22]} At that moment Rabbi Yishmael wept and uttered a sentence that became a foundational moral principle: "The daughters of Israel are beautiful, but poverty makes them unsightly."^{[21, 23]}

From a halakhic standpoint, the story reflects Rabbi Yishmael's distinctive method in the laws of vows.^[21] Whereas the first tanna holds that a vow may be released only if it was a "mistaken vow" from the outset (that is, the girl was already beautiful at the time of the vow and the man who vowed was mistaken about her), Rabbi Yishmael held that the vow is released even if the girl became beautiful only after the vow (through her beautification by the court).^[21] This method accords with the position of Rabbi Eliezer that "potchin be-nolad" (one may open a vow on the basis of a new development)—that is, one may rely on a new reality that did not exist at the time of the vow in order to bring about its release.^[21]

Moral Thought and Proper Conduct

Tractate Avot cites several key sayings of Rabbi Yishmael that outline the social character traits he demanded of himself and of others ^{[24, 25]}: "Be light toward the head (kal la-rosh) and easy toward the tishchoret (no'ach le-tishchoret), and receive every person with joy."^{[24, 25]} The commentators on the Mishnah offer several interpretations of this saying ^[25]:

• Maimonides (Rambam) and Rabbi Ovadia of Bartenura: They interpreted "kal la-rosh" to mean that one should hasten and make oneself light in order to serve and honor a great man who sits at the head of the yeshiva.^{[11, 25]} On the other hand, "no'ach le-tishchoret"—before a young man whose hair is black there is no need to humble oneself, but one should stand before him calmly, respectfully and with composure.^{[11, 25]}
• A social-class interpretation (Tiferet Yisrael): proposes seeing the saying as a directive for comprehensive social peace.^[25] When meeting someone greater than oneself ("rosh," head), one should regard oneself as light dust before him and behave with submission.^[25] When meeting someone below oneself ("tishchoret," from the term for a tax or levy, that is, a lowly subject), one should not lord it over him but behave toward him with humility and calm.^[25] With one's equals, one should behave with respect and joy, so as to maintain peace and love with every person.^[25]
• A chronological interpretation (Rashi): explains the concepts along the axis of a person's life.^[25] In his youth ("in his beginning") he should be light and quick to do the will of his Creator, and in his old age ("tishchoret," from the term for old age and the darkening of the face) he should continue to serve God calmly and with composure.^[25]

In addition, Tractate Avot cites a saying of Rabbi Yishmael his son (who must be distinguished from Rabbi Yishmael ben Elisha, since he is the son of Rabbi Yochanan ben Beroka and transmits his teaching) ^{[26, 27]}: "One who learns in order to teach is enabled to learn and to teach. And one who learns in order to do is enabled to learn and to teach and to do."^{[26, 28]}

Textual research on the Mishnah has revealed fascinating variant readings of this saying.^[27] In the Kaufmann manuscript and in early Genizah fragments the reading is: "One who learns in order to teach is not enabled to learn and to teach."^[27] This variant reflects a stringent ideological position, according to which one who studies Torah solely to attain status, title or honor ("to teach"), and does not intend to fulfill the commandments in practice, his study is flawed at its root and he receives no help from Heaven.^[27]

By contrast, the accepted version (the reading of the printed editions and of Maimonides) that reads "is enabled" is explained by the Bartenura in the spirit of the distinction between Rabbah and Abaye: one who learns in order to teach and does not engage in acts of loving-kindness (like Rabbah)—his intention is fulfilled and he is helped to learn and to teach, whereas one who learns in order to do and to perform acts of loving-kindness (like Abaye)—is helped to accomplish both aspirations together.^[28]

Alongside these, further moral sayings of Rabbi Yishmael have been preserved that reflect his educational and psychological outlook ^[11]:

"Why is the ear hard and the earlobe soft? So that if a person hears something improper, he may bend the earlobe into the ear" ^[11]—a tangible moral instruction to refrain from listening to slander and to things that are not fitting.

"If you have seen a Torah scholar who committed a transgression at night, do not think ill of him by day—perhaps he has repented" ^[11]—a sharp call to judge others favorably and to protect the honor of those who study Torah.

"Blessing rests only on a thing that is hidden from the eye" ^[11]—an emphasis on modesty and on keeping away from the evil eye and from material displays of pride.

"If this repulsive one (that is, the evil inclination) encounters you, drag him to the study hall: if he is a stone, he dissolves; and if he is iron, he shatters" ^[11]—identifying Torah study as the central therapeutic and spiritual tool for coping with a person's negative inclinations.

Rabbi Tarfon testified of Rabbi Yishmael that he was "a great sage and well versed in aggadot," a testimony that finds its full expression in the wealth of midrashim, sayings and practices that he left behind.^[7]

Summary and Conclusions

The work and teaching of the Tanna Rabbi Yishmael present a model of spiritual leadership that combines in methodical harmony orderly logical reasoning with deep social and human sensitivity.^{[3, 6]} Whereas his colleague Rabbi Akiva turned to the mystical realms of expounding superfluous letters and turning the text into an infinite space of hermeneutical inclusions, Rabbi Yishmael preserved the integrity of human language and established that the Torah speaks in the language of human beings.^{[3, 6, 9]} This method enabled him to form a logical, moderate and reasonable system of law that prevents unnecessary stringency in capital cases and eases the application of halakha in practical life.^[9]

His positive social conception—which demands combining Torah with work, shows deep compassion for the poverty of Israel and acts for social repair—made him a revered leader whose memory was engraved in the hearts of his contemporaries and of later generations.^{[3, 19, 21]} Even in his passing from the world, through severe tortures that constituted one of the most tragic chapters in the history of the destruction, Rabbi Yishmael remained a symbol of self-sacrifice, purity and good qualities, uniting around his legacy the worlds of halakha, aggadah and Kabbalah alike.^{[1, 8]} Rabbi Yishmael's legacy continues to resonate every morning in the synagogues, during the recitation of the thirteen principles by which the Torah is expounded, an eternal testimony to his decisive contribution to the shaping of the Jewish bookshelf.^{[4, 14]}