Shechania the Righteous
In the daf for Shabbat, namely Sanhedrin 11a, we see Shechania as an example of someone who took care not to embarrass others, and thus took the blame for himself. This was even as he initiated the issue. Thus:
וְרַבִּי מֵאִיר מֵהֵיכָא גְּמִיר לַהּ? מִשְּׁמוּאֵל הַקָּטָן. וּשְׁמוּאֵל הַקָּטָן מֵהֵיכָא גְּמִיר לַהּ? מִשְּׁכַנְיָה בֶן יְחִיאֵל, דִּכְתִיב: ״וַיַּעַן שְׁכַנְיָה בֶן יְחִיאֵל מִבְּנֵי עֵילָם וַיֹּאמֶר לְעֶזְרָא אֲנַחְנוּ מָעַלְנוּ בֵאלֹהֵינוּ וַנֹּשֶׁב נָשִׁים נׇכְרִיּוֹת מֵעַמֵּי הָאָרֶץ וְעַתָּה יֵשׁ מִקְוֶה לְיִשְׂרָאֵל עַל זֹאת״.
And from where did Rabbi Meir learn that characteristic? From Shmuel HaKatan, in the incident outlined above. And from where did Shmuel HaKatan learn it? From Shecaniah ben Jehiel, as it is written: “And Shecaniah, the son of Jehiel, one of the sons of Elam, answered and said to Ezra: We have broken faith with our God, and have married foreign women of the peoples of the land; yet now there is hope for Israel concerning this” (Ezra 10:2). And although he confessed, Shecaniah is not listed among those who took foreign wives (Ezra 10:18–44). Evidently, he confessed only to spare the others from public embarrassment.
Regarding אֲנַחְנוּ, “we”, there is an inclusive “we”, meaning “we and you” which includes the hearer, and an exclusive “we”, meaning “we and not you”, which excludes the hearer. That is the basis for some of the derashot in the Haggadah. But, the claim here is that this is a “we” that excludes the speaker! And this was done to spare others from public embarrassment, and effectively was a lie.
Now, how did the gemara know that Shechania was innocent of the crime itself? I haven’t see this well explained, in terms of proof. Rashi just writes:
אנחנו מעלנו - והוא לא נשא נכרית והכניס עצמו בכלל שלא להלבין פניהם:
We have broken faith: But he did not marry a foreign woman. So he included himself in order to not whiten their faces.
But where did Rashi know this from? Rav Steinsaltz explained it above, in the gloss text, so baruch shekivanti. Though I would clarify it a little bit. This is where you need to read the full context of the pesukim. Namely, read below in that chapter in Ezra, and it lists those who had married foreign wives and now were divorcing them. And, among that list are those from Elam, who is Shechaniah’s grandfather (for he is ben Yechiel ben Elam). And those pesukim read:
וּמִבְּנֵ֖י עֵילָ֑ם מַתַּנְיָ֤ה זְכַרְיָה֙ וִיחִיאֵ֣ל וְעַבְדִּ֔י וִירֵמ֖וֹת וְאֵלִיָּֽה׃ {ס}
of the sons of Elam: Mattaniah, Zechariah, Jehiel, Abdi, Jeremoth, and Elijah;
So he is talking, among others, about his father Yechiel ben Elam. As well as his uncles. But he, himself, is not listed. Now, maybe you can say that he is not listed since they are only giving first generation sons, not after that. Or maybe he is speaking in the collective we because within his family they have taken. Also interesting to wonder — did Yechiel take only one wife. Meaning, is Shechaniah’s mother one of these foreign women?
Rabban Gamliel II is the takif, the strong one, yet he says “I and my colleagues” endorse intercalating. Meanwhile, his son, Rabban Shimon ben Gamliel II, is the modest one, yet he just says “I” endorse. At the turn of the amud:
תָּא חֲזִי מַאי אִיכָּא בֵּין
Concerning the declaration of Rabban Shimon ben Gamliel, the Gemara observes: Come and see what difference there is between
According to our text of the brayta, Rabban Gamliel says וּשְׁפַרָא מִילְּתָא בְּאַנְפַּאי וּבְאַנְפֵּי חֲבֵירַיי, “And consequently, the matter is good before me and before my colleagues,”
The gemara explains דִּילְמָא בָּתַר דְּעַבְּרוּהּוֹ. “Perhaps this incident occurred after they deposed Rabban Gamliel from his position as Nasi.”
There’s a dispute between Rashi and Tosafot in explaining this dilma. Thus, Rashi writes:
דילמא בתר דעברוהו - לרבן גמליאל מנשיאותו נעשה עניו:
The incident changed his character somewhat, and he became a humble person.
Tosafot explain otherwise:
בתר דעברוהו - פירוש והיה לו חבר ר' אלעזר בן עזריה שהיה נשיא עמו לכך אמר באנפי חבראה:
Once they deposed him they appointed Rabbi Eleazar ben Azaria, and after he apologized, they reinstated him alongside Rabbi Eleazar ben Azaria. Therefore, there was a Nasi with him. That is why he said “before חבראה”.
I don’t know if Tosafot intend it, but with this ending instead of the yud yud, maybe it could mean colleague in the singular. With our text and yud yud, it is “ay” and the plural. If it were one yud, thus it could be chaveri, my colleague.
(Though I am not sure what the Talmudic Narrator would be thinking about this, in the singular. This was transmitted orally, which means that it would be read aloud, with all the vowels. Only in written form could there be this uncertainty.)
The three printings have yud yud as ay, and Florence 8-9 has aleph yud, also as ay.
Meanwhile Yad HaRav Herzog has be’anpai and skips the fellow(s). However, the next word is ve’osifna, which is plural. Earlier for his son in the same manuscript, it was ve’osifit, which was singular.
Munich has ובאנפי חבריי ואוסיפנ, thus the extra phrase and the extra verb.
One really far-out fragment is this, Oxford: Heb. c. 17/60
שפר בעיננא ובעיני חברנא?י? לאוספא על שתא תלתין יומין
Different words, but the same idea. Anyway, I couldn’t find something to support the text in Tosafot together with my conjecture.