Disputes Between Pharisees and Sadducees: Scripture, Impurity, and Legal Reasoning (Mishnah Yadayim 4:6-8)

This Mishnah passage presents a series of polemical exchanges between the Pharisees (פרושים - the predecessors of rabbinic Judaism) and Sadducees (צדוקים - the priestly aristocratic party) centered on purity laws, textual sanctity, tort liability, and scribal practices.¹

The exchanges likely date to the 1st century BCE - 1st century CE. It serves as a window into the intellectual and religious world from which both rabbinic Judaism and Christianity emerged, showing the legal and theological reasoning that characterized late Second Temple period sectarian Judaism.

Literary and Redactional Features

The literary framework of formal complaints ("קובלין אנו עליכם") suggests rhetorical constructions of juridical or scholarly disputations.

1. Formulaic Structure: Each dispute starts with the formulaic statement: “We complain against you [Pharisees / Sadducees]!”²

2. Balanced Presentation: Both sides are stated

Historical Significance

This text provides rare early source material for late Second Temple sectarian debates.

It demonstrates:

• Pharisaic and Sadducean legal reasoning

• The central role of purity laws at the time

• The early development of concepts later central to rabbinic Judaism (protective legislation, moral agency, canonical criteria)

Outline

Intro

1. Literary and Redactional Features

2. Historical Significance

The Passage - Disputes Between Pharisees and Sadducees: Scripture, Impurity, and Legal Reasoning (Mishnah Yadayim 4:6-8)

1. Dispute #1 - Biblical texts imparting impurity

   1. Pharisees: Biblical texts impart impurity; Sadducean Objection: Homer doesn’t impart impurity, so why should Biblical texts?

   2. Pharisaic Response (via Rabban Yochanan ben Zakkai): Ritual impurity is a sign of affection, not denigration

2. Dispute #2 - Ritual Impurity of Flowing Liquids

   1. Pharisees: Continuous liquid stream (נצוק) does not transmit impurity

   2. Sadducees: Cemetery water does not transmit impurity

3. Dispute # 3 - Tort Law

   1. Pharisees: Slaves are exempt from tort liability; Sadducean Objection: If one is liable for animals, surely one is liable for humans

   2. Pharisaic Response: Animals lack intelligence (דעת), whereas slaves have intelligence and may therefore act willfully and maliciously

4. Dispute # 4 - Writing Together the names of God and Secular Rulers

   1. Pharisees: Ruler and Moses named together in divorce documents (‘get’); Sadducean Objection: That’s disrespectful

   2. Pharisaic Objection: Sadducees put the ruler’s name above God’s in holy texts (Exodus 5:2, 9:27)

Appendix - Pharaoh’s Reversal and Its Theological Echoes (Mekhilta Beshalach 1:1)

1. “Sending” Means Accompanying (Exodus 13:17; Genesis 18:16; 26:31)

2. Pharaoh’s Denial and Concession: “I Will Not Send” → “I Will Send” (Exodus 5:2; 8:24; Deuteronomy 23:8)

3. “I Do Not Know YHWH” → “YHWH Fights for Them” (Exodus 5:2; 14:25; Isaiah 19:19)

4. “Who is YHWH?” → “YHWH is the Righteous One” (Exodus 5:2; 9:27; 15:12)

The Passage

Mishnah_Yadayim.4.6-8

Dispute #1 - Biblical texts imparting impurity

Pharisees: Biblical texts impart impurity; Sadducean Objection: Homer doesn’t impart impurity, so why should Biblical texts?

אומרים צדוקים:

קובלין אנו עליכם, פרושים,

שאתם אומרים:

• כתבי הקדש -- מטמאין את הידים,

• וספרי הומריס -- אינו מטמא את הידים.

The Sadducees say:

we complain against you, Pharisees,

because you say that

• the Holy Scriptures defile the hands,

• but the books of Homer do not defile the hands.

Pharisaic Response (via Rabban Yochanan ben Zakkai): Ritual impurity is a sign of affection, not denigration

Rabban Yohanan ben Zakkai responds as follows:³

The ritual impurity is protective - sacred objects require special handling precisely because of their “belovedness” (חבתן - i.e. sanctity).

The bone analogy illustrates this: we treat revered objects—like parents' bones and the bones of Yohanan the High Priest—with special restrictions to prevent casual, disrespectful use.⁴

אמר רבן יוחנן בן זכאי:

וכי אין לנו על הפרושים אלא זו בלבד?!

הרי הם אומרים:

• עצמות חמור -- טהורים

• ועצמות יוחנן כהן גדול -- טמאים.

אמרו לו:

לפי חבתן --

היא טמאתן,

שלא יעשה אדם עצמות אביו ואמו תרודות.

אמר להם:

אף כתבי הקדש --

לפי חבתן היא טמאתן,

וספרי הומריס,

שאינן חביבין,

אינן מטמאין את הידים

Rabban Yohanan ben Zakkai said:

Have we nothing against the Pharisees but this?!

Behold they say that

• the bones of a donkey are clean,

• yet the bones of Yohanan the high priest are unclean.

They said to him:

according to the affection for them,

so is their impurity,

so that nobody should make spoons out of the bones of his father or mother.

He said to them:

so also are the Holy Scriptures --

according to the affection for them, so is their uncleanness.

And the books of Homer

which are not precious

do not defile the hands.

Dispute #2 - Ritual Impurity of Flowing Liquids

Pharisees: Continuous liquid stream (נצוק) does not transmit impurity

The Sadducees also object to the Pharisaic rule that an uninterrupted stream (ניצוק) of liquid does not transfer impurity.⁵

אומרים צדוקין:

קובלין אנו עליכם, פרושים,

שאתם מטהרים את הנצוק.

The Sadducees say:

we complain against you, Pharisees,

that you declare an uninterrupted flow of a liquid to be clean.

Sadducees: Cemetery water does not transmit impurity

In turn, the Pharisees criticize the Sadducean ruling that a channel of water (אמת המים) passing through a cemetery remains pure.⁶

אומרים הפרושים:

קובלין אנו עליכם, צדוקים,

שאתם מטהרים את אמת המים הבאה מבית הקברות.

The Pharisees say:

we complain against you, Sadducees,

that you declare a stream of water which flows from a burial-ground to be clean

Dispute # 3 - Tort Law

Pharisees: Slaves are exempt from tort liability; Sadducean Objection: If one is liable for animals, surely one is liable for humans

The Sadducees question the Pharisaic distinction in tort law between animals and slaves: animals that cause damage incur liability, but slaves do not.

They argue from a ‘kal vaḥomer’: if one is liable for animals, which are not subject to commandments (מצות - mitzvot), how much more so for slaves, who are.⁷

אומרים צדוקין:

קובלין אנו עליכם, פרושים,

שאתם אומרים:

• שורי וחמורי שהזיקו -- חיבין.

• ועבדי ואמתי שהזיקו -- פטורין.

• מה אם שורי וחמורי,

  • שאיני חיב בהם מצות,

    • הרי אני חיב בנזקן.

• עבדי ואמתי,

  • שאני חיב בהן מצות,

    • אינו דין שאהא חיב בנזקן?!

The Sadducees say:

we complain against you, Pharisees,

that you say:

• my ox or donkey which has done injury is liable,

• [yet] my male or female slave who has done injury is not liable.

• Now if in the case of my ox or my donkey

  • for which I am not responsible if they do not fulfill religious duties,

    • yet I am responsible for their damages,

• in the case of my male or female slave

  • for whom I am responsible to see that they fulfill mitzvot,

    • how much more so that I should be responsible for their damages!

Pharisaic Response: Animals lack intelligence (דעת), whereas slaves have intelligence and may therefore act willfully and maliciously

The Pharisees’ response is that the ‘kal vaḥomer’ analogy is invalid: slaves possess ‘da'at’ (intelligence), unlike animals. If provoked, a slave may act willfully and maliciously—e.g., setting fire to a neighbor’s field, causing the slave’s master to have financial liability (complicating the question of agency and liability).

אמרו להם:

לא.

• אם אמרתם בשורי וחמורי, שאין בהם דעת,

• תאמרו בעבדי ובאמתי, שיש בהם דעת.

שאם אקניטם,

ילך וידליק גדישו של אחר

ואהא חיב לשלם

They said to them:

No,

• if you argue about my ox or my donkey which have no understanding,

• can you deduce from there anything concerning a male or female slave who do have understanding?

So that if I were to anger either of them

and they would go and burn another person's stack,

should I be liable to make restitution?

Dispute # 4 - Writing Together the names of God and Secular Rulers

Pharisees: Ruler and Moses named together in divorce documents (‘get’); Sadducean Objection: That’s disrespectful

A Galilean Sadducee objects to the Pharisees writing the names of Moses and the (current secular) ruler (מושל) together on a divorce document.⁸

אמר צדוקי גלילי:

קובל אני עליכם, פרושים,

שאתם כותבין את המושל עם משה בגט.

A Galilean min said:

I complain against you Pharisees,

that you write the name of the ruler and the name of Moses together on a divorce document.

Pharisaic Objection: Sadducees put the ruler’s name above God’s in holy texts (Exodus 5:2, 9:27)

The Pharisees counter that the Sadducees commit a more serious offense: inscribing the name of the ruler above that of God.

They cite Pharaoh's mockery in Exodus 5:2 (“Who is YHWH...?”) versus his later confession of God's justice after suffering the plagues (ibid. 9:27).⁹

אומרים פרושים:

קובלין אנו עליך, צדוקי גלילי,

שאתם כותבים את המושל עם השם בדף,

ולא עוד, אלא

שאתם כותבין את המושל מלמעלן ואת השם מלמטן,

שנאמר (שמות ה):

"ויאמר פרעה:

מי ה'

אשר אשמע בקלו

לשלח את ישראל"

וכשלקה מהו אומר?

(שם ט) "ה' הצדיק"

The Pharisees said:

we complain against you, Galilean min,

that you write the name of the ruler together with the divine name on a single page [of Torah]

And furthermore that

you write the name of the ruler above and the divine name below

As it is said:

"And Pharoah said:

Who is YHWH

that I should hearken to his voice

to let Israel go?" (Exodus 5:2)

But when he was smitten what did he say?

"YHWH is righteous" (Exodus 9:27).

Appendix - Pharaoh’s Reversal and Its Theological Echoes (Mekhilta Beshalach 1:1)

Mekhilta_DeRabbi_Yishmael - Tractate_Vayehi_Beshalach.1.1

This midrashic unit examines the shift in Pharaoh’s rhetoric across the Exodus narrative and explores how these reversals are rewarded in later scriptural texts.¹⁰

Using wordplay on "sending" (שלח), the passage interprets Pharaoh’s earlier defiance and later concessions as significant speech acts with major future consequences.

The structure is tripartite: each unit links a statement of rebellion to a later acknowledgment, and then to a corresponding divine reward.

“Sending” Means Accompanying (Exodus 13:17; Genesis 18:16; 26:31)

The opening line reinterprets the verb "ויחי בשלח פרעה את העם" not as simple dismissal but as active accompaniment (לווי).

It cites Abraham and Isaac, who "send" by walking alongside others.

"ויהי בשלח פרעה את העם".

אין שלוח בכל מקום אלא לווי,

שנאמר:

(בראשית יח,טז) "ואברהם הלך עמם לשלחם".

(בראשית כו,לא) "וישלחם יצחק".

(Exodus 13:17) "And it was, when G–d sent ("shalach") the people":

"sending" in all places is accompaniment,

viz. (Genesis 18:16) "And Abraham went with them to send them,"

(Ibid. 26:31) "And Isaac sent them."

Pharaoh’s Denial and Concession: “I Will Not Send” → “I Will Send” (Exodus 5:2; 8:24; Deuteronomy 23:8)

Pharaoh first states “I will not send Israel,” but later relents: “I will send you and your children.”

This reversal earns Egypt a future reward: “You shall not abominate (תתעב) an Egyptian” (Deuteronomy 23:8).

הפה שאמר (שמות ה,ב) "גם את ישראל לא אשלח",

הוא הפה שאמר: (שמות ח,כד) "אנכי אשלח אתכם וזבחתם ליי אלהיכם במדבר".

מה שכר נטלו על כך?

(דברים כג,ח) "לא תתעב מצרי".

The mouth (of Pharaoh) that said (Exodus 5:2) "Israel, too, I will not send,"

it is that (mouth) which said (Ibid. 10:10) "I will send you and your children."

How was he rewarded for this?

(Devarim 23:8) "You shall not abominate an Egyptian."

“I Do Not Know YHWH” → “YHWH Fights for Them” (Exodus 5:2; 14:25; Isaiah 19:19)

Pharaoh denies knowledge of God—"I do not know YHWH"—but eventually admits divine agency in Israel’s military success: “YHWH fights for them.”

As recompense, Egypt is promised an altar and pillar (מצבה) dedicated to YHWH within its land (Isaiah 19:19 ; suggesting future religious transformation).

הפה שאמר (שמות ה,ב) "לא ידעתי את יי",

הוא הפה שאמר: (שמות יד,כה) "אנוסה מפני ישראל, כי יי נלחם להם במצרים."

מה שכר נטלו על כך?

(ישעיה יט,יט) "ביום ההוא, יהיה מזבח ליי בתוך ארץ מצרים, ומצבה אצל גבולה ליי."

The mouth which said (Exodus 5:2) "I do not know YHWH,"

it is that (mouth) which said (Ibid. 14:25) "I will flee from before Israel, for YHWH wars for them against the Egyptians."

How was he rewarded for this?

(Isaiah 19:19) "On that day there will be an altar to YHWH in the midst of the land of Egypt and a pillar at its border to YHWH."

“Who is YHWH?” → “YHWH is the Righteous One” (Exodus 5:2; 9:27; 15:12)

Lastly, Pharaoh’s rhetorical question “Who is YHWH?” gives way to theological surrender: “YHWH is the righteous one, and I and my people are wicked.”

The reward? Burial: “the earth swallowed them” (interpreted here not only as punishment but as an honorable provision for the dead).

הפה שאמר (שמות ה,ב) "מי יי אשר אשמע בקלו?"

הוא הפה שאמר (שמות ט,כז) "יי הצדיק, ואני ועמי הרשעים."

ומה שכר נטלו על כך?

שנתן להם מקום קבורה,

שנאמר: (שמות טו,יב) "נטית ימינך, תבלעמו ארץ".

The mouth which said (Exodus 5:2) "Who is YHWH that I should hearken to His voice,"

it is that mouth which said (Ibid. 9:27) "YHWH is the Tzaddik, and I and my people are the wicked" —

wherefore He gave them a place for burial,

as it is written (Ibid. 15:12) "You inclined Your right hand — the earth swallowed them up."

1. These are the final Mishnah sections in the entire Mishnaic corpus.

On the previous sections in this tractate, see my previous pieces:

• ‘Sacred and Defiles the Hands’: The Canonical Status of the Biblical Books of Ecclesiastes and Song of Songs (Mishnah Yadayim 3:5)

• Counting the Letters in the Mishnah: Measuring the Length of All Four Thousand Individual Mishnayot (With analysis of Mishnah Yadayim 4:3)

2. "קובלין אנו עליכם".

It’s worth noting that this Hebrew verb, in the sense of “complain [about someone]”, etymologically stems from Aramaic, and is relatively rare in Talmudic literature.

On the word, see Hebrew Wiktionary, קָבַל; and Jastrow, definition #2:

to feel oppressed; to cry; ([compare] צוח) to complain, bring charges.

And ibid., the following entry, for the Aramaic usage.

Based on all that, plausible rough English equivalents for 'קובלין אנו עליכם' would be:

1. 'We protest/condemn your actions'

2. 'We have a complaint against you'

3. 'We object to your conduct'

4. 'We accuse you'

5. 'We raise a grievance against you' (i.e. formalized complaint)

Each of these captures an aspect of קובלין depending on whether it’s read as emotional (like צוח - 'cry out') or procedural (like 'bring charges').

3. Notably, the Mishnah here mentions two late Second Temple figures who are central in rabbinic memory: Rabban Yohanan ben Zakkai (mid-1st century CE) and Yohanan the High Priest.

“Yohanan the High Priest” is likely the late 2nd-century BCE Hasmonean king John Hyrcanus, see Wikipedia, “John Hyrcanus“, section “Legacy“; and Hebrew Wikipedia, “יוחנן כהן גדול“, section “זהותו“.

For another Mishnaic mention of these figures, see my “Pt1 The End of an Era: The Mishnah on Societal Decline and the Discontinuation of Rituals (Mishnah Sotah 9:9-15)“, and my notes and hyperlinks there:

• Yoḥanan the High Priest - in section “Yoḥanan the High Priest Abolishes Tithing Declaration and Temple Practices“

• Yohanan ben Zakkai - in section “Nullification of Biblical Rituals: Impact of Widespread Murder and Adultery in Late Second Temple Period“

For other mentions of Yohanan ben Zakkai, see also these pieces:

• “Pt2 The End of an Era: The Mishnah on Societal Decline and the Discontinuation of Rituals (Mishnah Sotah 9:9-15)“, section “End of an Era: A List of Specific Virtues and Traditions Lost with the Deaths of Thirteen Major Tannaitic Figures“

• “Talmudic Stories Relating to the Destruction of the Second Temple (Gittin 55b-56a)” (“Vespasian and Rabban Yohanan ben Zakkai”)

4. “so that one doesn’t make spoons (תרודות) out of his parents’ bones”.

The word here used for “spoons” is unusual. On it, see Jastrow:

תרוד, תרווד

m[asculine]

(Syr[iac] תרודא = תרי יד)

“spoon”

(pointed on top and curved at the end […]

tarvad

So the correct pronunciation of the word here would be “tarwadot”.

5. See Mishnah_Tahorot.8.9:

1. הנצוק

2. והקטפרס

3. ומשקה טופח —

אינן חבור לא לטמאה ולא לטהרה.

1. A flow (נצוק) [from one vessel to the other]

2. or a slope (קטפרס - from Greek katapherḗs (καταφέρης) - “inclined“; analyzed as: kata ('down') + pherō ('carry'))

3. or dripping (טופח) liquid —

does not serve as a connective (חבור) either for uncleanness or for cleanness.

6. Thus highlighting differing conceptions between Pharisees and Sadducees regarding how impurity is transmitted through contact or proximity.

7. It’s worth noting that the ‘kal vaḥomer’ here is relatively complex, thus showing the importance and relative complexity of this formal method already in late Second Temple period.

See my formulization of this kind of ‘kal vaḥomer’, in my recent piece “'Is it not all the more so?!': The Kal Va-ḥomer (A Fortiori Argument) as a Literary and Rhetorical Pattern in the Talmud“, p. 3:

Here, the added “middle level” (J - attribute) is “being subject to commandments” (חיב בהם מצות).

8. גט - get.

The Sadducee perceives this as improper.

On the get in general, see my recent “‘Tractate Kinyanim’: Modes of Acquiring People, Livestock, Land and More (Mishnah Kiddushin 1:1-6)“, section “Women“.

9. Compare the passage from the midrash that I quote in the Appendix at the end of this piece: “Appendix - Pharaoh’s Reversal and Its Theological Echoes (Mekhilta Beshalach 1:1)“.

10. On this midrash section, see Noam Zohar, Secrets of the Rabbinic Workshop: Redaction as a Key to Meaning (2007, Hebrew), p. 69 and on.