Rabbit Hole #4: Talmudic Telephone — BT Yebamot 62a — #75

It was taught [in a baraita]: R. Natan says: Bet Shammai says [one is obligated to have] two male and two female children and Bet Hillel says a male and a female. Rav Huna said: According to R. Natan, what is Bet Shammai’s reasoning? Since it is written,  וַתֹּסֶף לָלֶדֶת אֶת-אָחִיו אֶת-הָבֶל she additionally bore his brother Abel (Genesis 4:2)— [this means] Abel and his [twin] sister and Cain and his [twin] sister. And it is written, [Adam knew his wife again, and she bore a son and named him Seth, meaning,] “God has provided me with another offspring in place of Abel,” for Cain had killed him (Genesis 4:25). But the Rabbis say that [Eve] was expressing gratitude [that God had given her another child].

 It was taught in another [baraita]: R. Natan says: Bet Shammai say: one male and one female and Bet Hillel say either a male or a female. Rava said: According to R. Natan, what is Bet Shammai’s reasoning? As it is said, [God] did not create [the world to be] a waste but formed it for habitation (Isaiah 45:18). And one has accomplished habitation [by having one child].

INTRODUCTION

For the past three editions (TMT #72, 73, and 74) we have been following Gemara’s discussion of the early rabbis’ decision to interpret Be fertile and increase (Genesis 1:28) prescriptively, thereby asserting that procreation is a Toraitic commandment, and the problems that unfold from that decision.

As we have learned previously, Mishnah records that, to fulfill the obligation to procreate, Bet Shammai (B”S) held two sons are required, while Bet Hillel (B”H) held both a son and a daughter are needed to fulfill the mitzvah. The Gemara above, however,  introduces  two alternative versions of the opinions of the Schools of Shammai and Hillel by way of baraitot (plural of baraita), mishnaic-era teachings (first and second centuries C.E.) that were preserved orally. What is more, not only do these two new versions conflict with one another, they are also attributed to the same person! So now we have three versions of how B”S and B”H understood the mitzvah of procreation.

COMMENTARY

In addition to the mishnah, Gemara preserves two alternative versions of the views of B”S and B”H in baraitot attributed to R. Natan. The three versions are illustrated in the following  table:

	Bet Shammai requires:	Bet Hillel requires:
Mishnah	2 males	1 male and 1 female
R. Natan #1	2 males and 2 females	1 male and 1 female
R. Natan #2	1 male and 1 female	1 child (either male or female)

Gemara focuses on B”S’s reasoning in recounting both baraitot, perhaps because the mishnah on Yebamot 61b (TMT #72) provided a proof text for Bet Hillel’s claim, but none for Bet Shammai’s.

Notice we now have three versions of B”S’s standard: 2 males; 2 males and 2 females; 1 male and 1 female. We have two versions of B”H’s standard: 1 male and 1 female; or one child (either sex). In the Mishnah’s version, both B”S and B”H require that same minimum number of children, and people would, on average, have to have the same number of children to reach either goal. In both of R. Natan’s versions (the two baraitot presented in the Gemara), B”S requires twice as many children as B”H.

For R. Natan #1, Rav Huna’s explanation of B”S’s reasoning hinges on a peculiar syntax of Genesis 4:2. There are two iterations of the direct object marker אֶת in the verse where one (or perhaps none) is grammatically required. Rav Huna tells us that B”S deduced from this redundancy that both Cain and Abel had twin sisters who are not specifically mentioned in the biblical narrative. Hence Eve actually had two sons and two daughters before Cain killed Abel. One might object, as Gemara proposes, that the birth of Seth invalidates this explanation—perhaps it suggests that the minimum number of children ought to be five. The rejoinder is that Eve made it clear that Seth was an “additional” child for which she felt gratitude, but he was not conceived out of obligation.

For R. Natan #2, Rava explains that B”S’s requirement to have one male and one female derives from Isaiah 45:18, wherein the prophet expresses God’s desire that the world be inhabited. Civilization requires people to reproduce. Therefore providing the world with one male and one female furthers that goal. The anonymous Gemara responds that having one child fulfills this goal sufficiently: one’s son can marry another’s daughter and vice versa.

QUESTIONS TO CONSIDER AND DISCUSS

1.   The game of Telephone relies on the notoriously inaccurate nature of oral transmission and aural reception, relying as they do on human hearing, interpretation, and memory. Might the three versions of B”S and B”H’s minimum requirements reflect the challenges of oral transmission? Can we know the original version? Do we need to know?

2.   Why does Gemara include two alternative, conflicting versions of B”S and B”H’s standards? Perhaps Gemara recognizes that setting any minimum is a problem? People have, and refrain from having, children for a wide variety of personal reasons. Could the Rabbis recognize that halakhah has gone too far by setting a minimum for the fulfillment of what it has chosen to interpret as a mitzvah?

3.   By presenting multiple versions of B”S and B”H’s minimums, are the Rabbis suggesting that individuals must choose? At the same time, does the notion of establishing a minimum suggest that individuals should take into consideration society’s needs?