דף הביתשיעוריםAvot

Avot128

נושא: Avot
BET MIDRASH VIRTUALI
of the Rabbinical Assembly in Israel


RABIN MISHNAH STUDY GROUP


Bet Midrash Virtuali

TRACTATE AVOT, CHAPTER TWO, MISHNAH NINE (recap):

Rabban Yoĥanan ben-Zakkai had five students, namely: Rabbi Eli'ezer ben-Hyrkanos, Rabbi Yehoshu'a ben-Ĥananyah, Rabbi Yosé ha-Kohen, Rabbi Shim'on ben-Netan'el, And Rabbi El'azar ben-Arakh. He would enumerate their virtues [thus]: Rabbi Eli'ezer ben-Hyrkanos is a cemented cistern that never loses a drop. Rabbi Yehoshu'a ben-Ĥananyah – happy she who gave him birth! Rabbi Yosé ha-Kohen is pious. Rabbi Shim'on ben-Netan'el is sin-fearing. Rabbi El'azar ben-Arakh is an ever renewing source. He would say that if all the sages of Israel were on one side of the scales and Eli'ezer ben-Hyrkanos on the other he would outweigh them all. [However,] Abba Sha'ul quotes him as saying that if all the sages of Israel were on one side of the scales – including Rabbi Eli'ezer ben-Hyrkanos – and Rabbi El'azar ben-Arakh were on the other he would outweigh them all.

EXPLANATIONS (continued):

14:
It was absolutely essential for the future development of Judaism in the post-Temple era that the decisions of the Sanhedrin be decisions for all: it was just not possible to permit each sage to teach as he thought fit. Within the Sanhedrin every possible view and tradition was possible, but once a vote had been taken and the view of the majority ascertained everyone had to accept the majority view as established halakhah. (Individual sages were permitted to continue to observe their own customs and received halakhah; they were even permitted to mention them publicly provided that they also acknowledged that the majority decision was otherwise. What they were not permitted to do was to teach their own minority view as accepted halakhah.)

15:
For these reasons the reaction of the sages to the recalcitrance of Rabbi Eli'ezer was swift and savage and it is recounted in the Gemara [Bava Metzi'a 59b]:

On that day they brought all objects that Rabbi Eli'ezer had declared [ritually] pure and burned them. Then they took a vote and excommunicated him.

Since his obstinacy would not permit Rabbi Eli'ezer to acknowledge the majority view he must be expelled from the Sanhedrin. If one of the greatest sages of the age (and of the ages) was treated thus it would serve as an example to all.

16:
Excommunication in this context did not have the spiritual and 'salvational' meanings which another religion associated with the term. It meant that the uncooperative person was to be shunned socially and academically until he recanted. It was forbidden for others to come within four cubits [2 metres] of his proximity. Having taken the bold step of expulsion from the Sanhedrin the question now arose as to how to break the news to one of the greatest scholars of the age, a personality that had dominated the Sanhedrin heretofore. It is one thing to take a vote but it is quite another to face the man's wrath (and Rabbi Eli'ezer was known to spare none with his acerbic tongue).

They said, "Who will go and tell him?" Rabbi Akiva said, "I will go, lest someone unworthy tell him."

The sessions of the Sanhedrin were public. Rabbi Akiva had been a student of Rabbi Eli'ezer and he was concerned that his beloved teacher should not hear the news from some member of the public who happened to be there – and might well be agog to report to the great man what his colleagues had done to him. The task must fall on a member of the Sanhedrin who could be trusted to act with sympathy and sensitivity.

What did Rabbi Akiva do? He donned black clothes, wore a black outer robe and then sat down before Rabbi Eli'ezer at a distance of four cubits. "Akiva," asked Rabbi Eli'ezer, "why is today different from other days [in that you keep your distance from me]?" He responded, "Rabbi, apparently our colleagues are keeping their distance from you."

Note that Rabbi Eli'ezer, as the teacher, addressed his pupil without the honorific title of 'rabbi' but Akiva, the former student, still had to defer to his teacher's status. This was customary. Eli'ezer immediately understood what had happened.

He rent his clothes, removed his shoes and sat on the ground [as a sign of mourning], his eyes streaming with tears.

So great was the sage's anger and frustration that the Gemara ascribes to them dire consequences which are clearly a pious embellishment. One consequence related, however, succinctly encapsulates the reason for the whole episode:

Rabban Gamli'el [who had presided over these events] was travelling on a ship when a huge wave threatened to engulf him. He said, "I think this is because of Rabbi Eli'ezer ben-Hyrkanos." He stood up and said, "Sovereign of the Universe, before You it is revealed and known that I did not do this for my own glory nor for the glory of my dynasty: it was for Your glory that I did it, so that there should not be dissension in Israel." The sea quietened down.

To be continued.

DISCUSSION:

In Avot 123 I brought a comment from David Baird in which he related how uncomfortable he was with what he perceived as the extreme nationalistic tinge that modern religious Zionism has assumed. In Avot 125 Elro'i Sadeh supported him with vehemence. I had hoped that someone might offer a different view, for the sake of balance. Here is a message that I received from Jacob Chinitz:

Many use Yoĥanan ben-Zakkai and Yavneh in promoting anti-nationalist doctrine. He gave up Jerusalem, hence we have to forego territory, nationhood, statehood in favor of Torah, culture, religion. The fallacy in this thinking is that Yavneh is also in Eretz-Israel. Yoĥanan ben-Zakkai continued the Torah She-be-al-peh which culminated in the Mishnah which includes Zeraim, Tahrot and Kodoshim which relate to the land, not to the Diaspora. The real anti-nationalists and pro-Diaspora Sages were those who stayed in Babylonia and developed Talmud Bavli which omits Gemara for Zeraim, except for Berakhot, and Taharot, except for Nidah. What does it say about Judaism without the homeland when our basic document is Talmud Bavli and not Talmud Yerushalmi?

I respond:

While much of what Jacob writes here is a reasonable analysis of history it has no relevance to the complaint put forward by David and Elro'i. It is quite true that there were sages in Babylon who even took steps to prevent their students from going to Eretz-Israel! But the complaint voiced here was not against Eretz-Israel: it was against a perceived elevation in some circles of the centrality of Eretz-Israel to a level which is suffocating most other aspects of modern Judaism and thereby transforming Judaism into something which it is not.

Discussion on this topic is now firmly closed.



דילוג לתוכן