Chizkiyah and the Ship of Theseus (full article)
Was Chizkiyah the teacher of Rabbi Yochanan?
Chizkiyah was a prominent first-generation Amora who ascended from Bavel to the Land of Israel. His father was the transitional Tanna / Amora Rabbi Chiyya, who was Rav’s uncle. Chizkiyah and his brother Yehuda, born to Rabbi Chiyya and his wife Yehudit, were twins, but one was born fully-formed at seven months and the other at nine months (Yevamot 65b).
In Shabbat 112b (and the Eruvin 24a parallel), Chizkiyah was studying or teaching the Mishnah in Keilim 17:1, that impure wooden vessels lose that impurity if they develop pomegranate-sized holes. (With olive-sized holes, the vessel could still hold pomegranates, so it’s still a vessel.) Chizkiyah posed a question: what if it developed an olive-sized hole which was fixed. Then it developed another such hole, which was fixed, etc., until those holes would’ve formed a pomegranate sized hole. Is it pure?
Rabbi Yochanan, much younger and considered second-generation, said to him: Rabbi, you taught us (Mishnah Keilim 26:4) about a sandal which became impure via the treading of a zav. If one ear broke and was repaired, it remains impure. If the other ear then broke and was repaired, it’s pure regarding treading… We asked you, how is the second ear breaking different? After all, when the first ear broke, the second ear was intact (so it was a valid sandal). Similarly, when the second ear broke, the first was intact! You replied, a new face has arrived here. (It’s not the original sandal, but a new sandal.) So too (regarding sequential olive-sized perforations, once they’d combine to a pomegranate-sized hole), a new face has arrived here. Chizkiyah exclaimed upon Rabbi Yochanan either לֵית דֵּין בַּר אִינָשׁ, this is no mere mortal, or כְּגוֹן דֵּין בַּר אִינָשׁ, this is an ideal human being!
Tangentially, this idea finds expression as a thought experiment of ancient philosophers and preserved by Plutarch in Life of Theseus 23:1. “The ship wherein Theseus and the youth of Athens returned from Crete had thirty oars, and was preserved by the Athenians down even to the time of Demetrius Phalereus, for they took away the old planks as they decayed, putting in new and stronger timber in their places, insomuch that this ship became a standing example among the philosophers, for the logical question of things that grow; one side holding that the ship remained the same, and the other contending that it was not the same.” Plutarch lived approximately 46 CE - after 119 CE, and Rabbi Yehuda HaNasi lived 135 CE - 217 CE.
Teacher - Student Relationship?
That sugya seemingly establishes Chizkiyah as Rabbi Yochanan’s teacher. After all, (a) Rabbi Yochanan calls him רַבִּי, (b) Rabbi Yochanan is of the next generation, (c) Rabbi Yochanan cites Chizkiyah’s words, and (d) Rabbi Yochanan with a group was taught Mishnayot Keilim by Chizkiyah1.
This teacher-student relationship becomes relevant in our sugya, Bava Kamma 59b-60a. The Mishnah stated that if one sent a fire in the hands of a deaf-mute, imbecile, or minor, he’s exempt from paying damages. Second-generation Reish Lakish cited Chizkiyah that they only taught this where he handed the deaf-mute etc. a coal and the latter fanned it, but if he handed him a lit torch, he’d be liable. Rabbi Yochanan argues and exempts. The Rif (ad loc.) mentions that we’d logically rule like Chizkiyah, for he’s Rabbi Yochanan’s teacher. But, he mentions that someone rules like Rabbi Yochanan, because we don’t see Rabbi Yochanan and Chizkiyah directly arguing. The Rosh (ad loc.) refers us to Rosh Bava Kamma 1:8. There, he cites Rif’s two possibilities, then writes, “this [second] reason doesn’t make sense to me, for shouldn’t we rely on Reish Lakish’s testimony that Chizkiyah said it, and argues with Rabbi Yochanan in this?”
To defend the Rif: We don’t disbelieve Reish Lakish’s testimony! However, a student outside his teacher’s presence might differ in a dozen meaningful ways. Why rule like a teacher over a student? Perhaps while the student will argue in shiur and challenge the reasoning, ultimately when his teacher disagrees, the student will accept this and retract. Perhaps hearing from his teacher makes it a tradition against his personal position. Perhaps giving the teacher and student an opportunity to hear each other’s arguments allows us to technically weigh the teacher’s relative authority. Otherwise, perhaps the teacher would’ve been persuaded. And so on2.
With or without Chizkiyah, it’s Rabbi Yochanan against Reish Lakish, and there’s a general rule, uttered by Rava in Yevamot 36a, that we rule like Reish Lakish (only) in three instances. See my article in the Jewish Link, “Rabbi Yochanan vs. Reish Lakish”, September 14, 2023. How could we rule like Chizkiyah / Reish Lakish? The Rosh explains that it’s not counted since Reish Lakish isn’t speaking for himself, referring us to Chullin 29b, where Reish Lakish cites Levi arguing with Rabbi Yochanan, where Rava himself adopts the Reish Lakish / Levi position.
I’d add: in my article, I suggested that Rava’s list wasn’t exclusive,just three logically connected cases where we so ruled. Also, I wonder if the pattern “X says Y says A and Z says B” isn’t really X citing both Y and Z, as when Rav Yehuda cites Rav that A, and Shmuel says B. If so, Reish Lakish cites both Chizkiyah and Rabbi Yochanan. This would answer the Rava closed-set objection, Reish Lakish doesn’t argue. It would restore it to Rabbi Yochanan and Chizkiyah speaking to each other – so the teacher should win.
Colleagues?
The Ship of Theseus was all establishing Chizkiyah as Rabbi Yochanan’s teacher, for four reasons. However, (a) maybe Rabbi Yochanan only called him רַבִּי in politeness due to their respective ages, or scribes accidentally added the word. Manuscripts generally have רַבִּי, except for Munich 95 in Shabbat (but not in Eruvin) and Vatican 127 in Eruvin.
Regarding (b) Rabbi Yochanan as second-generation, I’ve discussed in a Jewish Link article (Where Credit is Due, June 9, 2022) that Rabbi Yochanan spanned generations. He was raised by Rabbi Yehuda HaNasi after being orphaned in his youth, so felt himself to be first-generation. In letters, he addressed Rav as “our Master in Bavel” but addressed first-generation Shmuel as “our colleague in Bavel”. Only after Shmuel proved himself scholastically did he regard him as teacher. Part of why Rabbi Yochanan was upset with second-generation Rabbi Eliezer ben Pedat seemingly plagiarizing him was that this was someone he deemed a student, despite some mutual teachers. When Rabbi Ami and Rabbi Asi sought to comfort him and referenced earlier disputes between colleagues, he thundered “are you deeming me and Rabbi Eliezer colleagues?!” Rabbi Yaakov bar Idi comforted him by saying that people all deem Rabbi Eliezer his student and assume unattributed statements as stemming from him. Especially if Rabbi Yochanan can hold his own against Chizkiyah, and awed Chizkiyah, maybe Rabbi Yochanan deemed himself a colleague!
As for (c) citing Chizkiyah’s words, this is to Chizkiyah himself, while suggesting how to resolve Chizkiyah’s own dilemma. As for (d) learning Mishnayot Keilim from Chizkiyah in his youth, what level of teaching makes someone a rebbe who wins in an halachic dispute? If he taught him aleph-beis? Yes, this is teaching reasoning behind Mishnayot, but is it the same degree as the relationship of Abaye and Rav Yosef?
Consider Rabbi Yannai, who’s reckoned Rabbi Yochanan’s primary teacher. In Bava Batra 154b, Rabbi Zeira says of Rabbi Yochanan, אִם יִכְפּוֹר רַבִּי יוֹחָנָן בְּרַבִּי אֶלְעָזָר תַּלְמִידוֹ, יִכְפּוֹר בְּרַבִּי יַנַּאי רַבּוֹ? A small selection of their interactions follows. Rabbi Yochanan will cite Rabbi Yannai, for instance in Chullin 137b. He’ll raise a dilemma before him, for instance in Shabbat 140a. He’ll ask Rabbi Yannai a halachic question at a funeral in Yerushalmi Berachot 3:1.
Aside from the Ship of Theseus sugya giving us Chizkiyah as teacher, they always argue with each other, including Eruvin 50a; Chagiga 8a, 9a; Gittin 53a, 84b; Sanhedrin 86b; Avoda Zara 38b; Zevachim 56b; Menachot 104b; Chullin 57a, 106a, 121b; and Niddah 4a. On Moed Katan 10a and 13b, Rabbi Chiyya bar Abba and Rabbi Asi disagree, וְתַרְוַיְיהוּ מִשְּׁמֵיהּ דְּחִזְקִיָּה וְרַבִּי יוֹחָנָן, which seems like Chizkiyah and Rabbi Yochanan also disagree. Disagreement rather than citation or inquiry suggests to me a colleague relationship, rather than teacher and student. If so, we’d have to resolve disputes between Chizkiyah and Rabbi Yochanan in some other way.
See also Tosafot to Gittin 84b, Bava Kamma 117b and Menachot 23b, that Chizkiyah was Rabbi Yochanan’s teacher, and so long as Chizkiyah was alive, Rabbi Yochanan wasn’t a rosh yeshiva.
Compare to following the majority opinion, where there’s a pragmatic eilu ve’eilu distinction based on colocation.