Dr. Louis Finkelstein, in his recently revised edition of The Pharisees (3d ed., Philadelphia: Jewish Publication Society of America, 1962) reaffirms the major thesis of his original version of that work, and of his biography of R. Akiba (Akiba: Scholar, Saint and Martyr (New York: Couici-Friede, 1936), namely the sociological interpretation of the Halakhah in the Tannaitic period. In both books, Finkelstein refers the study of Torah to the socio-economic differences between the Hillelite-plebeian and the Shammaite-patrician groups within Pharisaism. This thesis, as well as its specific application to the popular study of Torah, has been subjected to exhaustive criticisms by, among others, Gedaliah Allon The pre at ramarks are meant as an addition to Allon’s strictures. '' Study, according to Prof. Finkelstein, was cherished by the plebeians, such as R. Johanan B. Zakkai and R. Akiba, whereas the provincials, and the aristocrats descended from them, had only contempt for book learning. Finkelstein’s arguments are largely based on isolated remarks in Avot which are more in the nature of personal aphorisms ה"־א היה אופר -- and are not normative and conclusive as are halakhot, and therefore cannot serve as sufficient basis for re-constructing a whole philosophy. The danger of reliance on stray observations is amply illustrated, in this context of the problem of the Study of Torah, by the assertion of Finkelstein that R. Simeon b. Gamaliel was a defector from the Hillelites to the Shammaites. Finkelstein finds patricianism reflected in such statements by R. Simeon b. Gamaliel as "Not the Study but the Practice of the Law is essential," ' which he considers con-sistent with Shammai’s negative attitude to Torah study as seen in Shammai’s "Say little and do much."^^ Referring to R. Simeon, Finkelstein adds: ...this child of the most culturally distinguished family in Judaism tried to assume the manners of the backward provincial and patrician landowners. He acted as thoug…