"Rabban Yochanan ben (son of) Zakkai had five [primary] students. They were: Rabbi Eliezer ben Hurkenos, Rabbi Yehoshua ben Chananya, Rabbi Yossi the Priest, Rabbi Shimon ben Nesanel, and Rabbi Elazar ben Arach."
The times of R. Yonchanan ben Zakkai were turbulent and confusing. They were times of turmoil and new sects and religious philosophies: Sadducees, Essenes, Zealots, Christians according to their kinds, gnostics, pagans and everything in between. Whereas before Judsim sought balance and serenity in pursuit of national destiny to worship Hashem, now it had to form a defensive formation, that could both defend and attack. Zuggos (pairs) typified the situation in which there are two alternatives, thesis and anti-thesis. The challenge is keeping balance. The Hegelian paradigm of thesis, antithesis, catharsis was the reality of R. Yochanan's teachers, who were pairs and spoke in tripartite teachings. After R. Yochanan, Judaism became typified by five member leadership. The number five signifies a defensive formation, in which one warrior faces to each of the four direction and one holds them together to form the center. The advantage of five aligned in a formation is that it is both defensive and offensive, as long as the center holds and can guide them to withdraw or expand together.
We find that the three generations after R. Yochanan were led by groups of five.
1. Five students of R. Yochanan: Rabbi Eliezer ben Hurkenos, Rabbi Yehoshua ben Chananya, Rabbi Yossi the Priest, Rabbi Shimon ben Nesanel, and Rabbi Elazar ben Arach."
2. The five Sages of the Haggadah who were reclining in Bnei Brak: Rabbi Eliezer, Rabbi Yehoshua, Rabbi Elazar Ben Azaryah, Rabbi Akiva and Rabbi Tarfon.
3.Five students of R. Akiva, from whom Torah was rebuilt after his thousands of students died durng the days between Pesach and Shevuos: R. Meir, R. Judah, R. Jose, R. Simeon and R. Eleazar b. Shammua (Yevamos 62b)
4.These five are also the ones who were ordained by R. Yehuda ben Baseyra, for which he was killed by Romans: "And some say also R. Nechemya" (Sanhedrin 14b)
4.R. Jose had five sons: R. Ishmael, Eleazer, Menachem, Halafta (who died in his lifetime), and Eudemus(Shabbos 118b).
I am sure there are more examples but these are the ones I remember right now.
Once you take this approach, you can understand the forthcoming discussion on whether it is R. Eliezeror R. Elazar ben Arach outweighed everyone else. The central point is whether it is R. Eliezer ben Hurcunus, the cemented cistern that loses not a drop who is the center of the formation, or R. Elazar ben Arach who is like an ever increasingly flowing spring. Who holds together the center, one who contains all of the traditions of the past or one who engages and flows forward with an overpowering rushing of Torah? What is the center: tradition or innovation?
The paradigm of "five" explains why R. Akiva is not listed in our Mishna as a student of R. Yochanan ben Zakkai, whereas in Sotah 5:2 , R. Yehoshua calls him a student of R. Yochanan ben Zakkai. Rambam there comments that R. Akiva was called a student of R. Yochanan because he was a student of his student. We do find that a faithful student of a student can be termed a pupil of the original teacher; for example, Shmuel Hakaton is called a student of Hillel and Hillel is called student of Ezra in Sanhedrin 11a. However, in Pirke D/Rabbi Eliezer 7 it states that R.Akiva was one of a group who sanctified the new moon with R. Yochanan ben Zakkai. It seems that R. Akiva was a student of his after all. If so, why is he not listed in our Mishna. Perhaps, it is because he was not an official member of the Group of Five.
The next mishna tells us what the qualities were of each of the five, with which they confronted the challenges of the time. We will discuss them in due time but first let us look at them:
He used to enumerate their praises: R. Eliezer ben Hurkenos is a cemented pit which never loses a drop; R. Yehoshua ben Chananya - fortunate is she who bore him; R. Yossi the Priest is pious; R. Shimon ben Nesanel fears sin; and R. Elazar ben Arach is as an increasing river."

Chumros on Pesach and in general
I seem to write about chumros every Pesach because every Pesach brings with it additonal insights into this subject. Chumros on Pesach are a prominent feature of the Pesach landscape and partake of many related and important ideas in spirituality and Avodas Hashem.
Why is even a tiny piece of Chametz forbidden on Pesach? Radvaz (Rabbi David ben Zimra, 1479-1573) askes this question in She'elot uTeshuvot Radvaz, 3:546 (977). After finding that there is no other halacha that makes quite such stringent demands, he concludes that this is because chametz symbolizes the yetzer hara (evil inclination). One place where this idea is expressed is in Brochos 17a, where it says that when Rabbi Alexandari finished saying the amidah, he would add a tefillah: "Master of the Universe, You know full well that it is our desire to act according to Your will; but what prevents us from doing so? The se’or in the dough..."
However, Chido in Simchas Haregel extends this idea from searching for chometz to Pesach in general. He writes(Machazik Bracha 457): "It is well known that every person accepts on himself stringencies, adding fences and barriers because of the severity of the prohibition of chomets, as Radvaz explained in a teshuva". He adds that there is no prohibiton of appearing super-punctillious but it should be done in private and the rabbi who rules for others should not follow only the letter of the law. The Minchas Eleizer writes similarly in Machazil Bracha 457 that on other ares of halcha "the power to permit is preferable" but our tradition regarding chometz is to rule according to strict opinons. He attributes this approach "our rabbis, ZTZ'L". This, unlike Chido, he directs even the rabbis to rule strictly, even for others. This approach finds its expression in the the Chabad saying, "Pesach is andersh(different)" and in the practice of Ismach Moshe to accept any possible chumra found is seforim, as documentd in Tehila L'Dovid, a sefer written by his grandson. This remains the prevailing approach in Satmar as documented in the article in the Pesach issue of Mishpacha about the Williamsburg Matza bakery, the only bakery in the world in which, based on R. Yoel's directive, every possible chumra is being kept.
The Mei HaShiloach quotes Reb Bunim MiParshischa who said that all the stringencies that the Jewish People adopt on Pesach are adornments to holiness, and this is alluded to in the verse that states (Shir HaShirim 1:!0) tzavareich bacharuzim, your neck with necklaces. This means that every limb of a person’s body has a corresponding ornament or garment, whereas the neck can be adorned with an ornament that is not unique to the neck. A precious stone is not designed to clothe someone. Rather, it is intended to be suspended from a person’s neck. Similarly, the stringencies that have been adopted by the Jewish People on Pesach is due to the fact that the neck is the vehicle through which the food enters, and it is specifically regarding food matters that all the stringencies on Pesach apply.
Here is how I understand this concept. Generally, a chumra is praiseworthy thing and an expression of loving G-d, except that a person should not take on stringencies that are far above his or her current level of observance. Doing so exposes his other deficiencies and represents Kefitsas Hamadreigos which is not the right way in serving Hashem. However on Pesach even chumros that are far above the observance level are fully legitimate. Pesach is the time of mortal combat with Yetser Hara and in a fight to the last, any weapon is acceptable. It is no dishonor to a warrior in the midst of the battle to slay his enemy with a tree trunk, should a sword not be available. Similalry, Pesach is a "time-out" during which the usual considerations in Derech Hoavoda do not apply.
I always thought that the statement of Ramo in in Orach Chaim 443:6 contradicts this approach. Ramo writes that those who scour and wash the walls before Pesach have what to rely on and shold not be ridiculed. Mishan Berura points out that they rely on a Yerushalmi. Doesn't this indicate that chumros even on Pesach must have something on which to rely, something at least of the gravity of Yerushalmi?
There is also found in the traditional sources an approach that is against all chumros on Pesach. Not surprisingly it comes from Breslov. Sichos HaRan #235 says:
"The Rebbe was also very much against all the special stringencies that are observed on Pesach. Many people went so far in observing many fine points of custom that they were literally depressed by the holiday. He spoke about this at length. One of his followers once asked the Rebbe exactly how to act with regard to an ultra-stringent observance. The Rebbe made a joke of it.
The Rebbe spoke about this quite often. He said that these ultra-strict practices are nothing more than confused foolishness. He told us that he had also been caught up in this and would waste much time thinking up all sorts of unnecessary restrictions. Once he worried about the drinking water used during Pesach. He was afraid that a small amount of leaven might have fallen into the well from which they drew water. The only alternative would be to prepare water in advance for the entire Pesach week, as some people do. But this was also not good enough, for the water had to be carefully safeguarded from leaven from the day before Pesach, and this was very difficult."
Here is how the RCA put it in a statement issued in 1997. " The promulgation of stringencies were condemned because they add additional financial burdens on the Jewish consumer. Unnecessary stringencies are divisive........they foster an atmosphere of cynicism that no standards are ever good enough."
However, there is also a middle approach, one that says that some chumros are good and some are bad.The good ones keep you out of trouble because they bring with them zechus avos.
Inyan this year, the magazine of Hamodia, contains an interesting interview with the Squarer Rebbe. In it he quotes this Ramo as an indication that chumros IN GENERAL, not only on Pesach, must have something on which to rely. "This is how the Rav of Ostrow interpreted this Ramo. This something should be a received tradition from our forefathers."This is a gevaldige message", the Rebber enthuses. "If one relies on his ancestros, it is their responsibility to ensure that he does not stumble. On the other hand, if their way does not find favor in his eyes,then it is as if he has forged a new path, and in that case ancestors bear no responsibility and one is dependent on his own zchyos". He goes on to share a story of a certain machmir who would not eat of the Magid of Chernobyl's shirayim because of the minhag of not to "mish" (eat other people's food on Pesach). The Maggid told him to check his water barrel and he found there a piece of floating chometz.
It is important to point out that this is not the kind of oppositon to chumros that one sometimes finds in the "modern" sector. The argument here is for the authority of traditional minhagim, not their dismissal as not somehow relevant to our 21st centruy lives. What the Squarer Rebbe says is that raditional chumros are to be mantained but new ones should not be manufactured by individuals.
I end with a quote from Shelah, Beis Chochma, vol1.
We find that as generations unfold more and more halachic stringencies are enacted. During days of Moshe Rabbeinu only those prohibitions that were explicitly received on Sinai were proscribed. Moshe Rabbeinu enacted a nubmer of stringencies based on his perception of the spiritual needs of the nation. In later generations, be it at the time of the prophets or the Tannaim, the prevailing spiritual leadership instituted additional halachic stringencies and guidelines.
Posted at 05:12 AM in Breslev, Chassidic Thought, Sundry Comments, Talmudic Spirituality | Permalink | Comments (0) | TrackBack (0)