Avot180

1:
Rabbi El'azar ha-Moda'i was a sage who lived in the first half of the 2nd century CE. At the time of the bar-Kokhba revolt [132-135 CE] he was already an aged and venerable sage. (His name means Rabbi El'azar from the town of Modi'in.) He is not quoted very much in our classical sources. In fact, our present mishnah is the only instance of his name in the whole of the Mishnah. (He is mentioned twice in the Tosefta, twelve times in the Babylonian Talmud and twice in the Talmud of Eretz-Israel.) Thus his reputation was not built so much on his halakhic acumen as on his personal characteristics. In addition, it seems, he was respected as a master of Aggadah [non-halakhic interpretation of Torah]. (Rabban Gamli'el [Shabbat 55b] praised his interpretative skill saying "We still need Moda'i" – despite the previous interpretations offered by others.)

2:
Although he was not during his lifetime a sage of the first rank (being dwarfed to a great extent by his more famous contemporaries Eli'ezer, Yehoshu'a, Akiva and others) he gained his place in Israel's hall of fame by his death. As the Roman military machine gradually re-conquered the whole of Eretz-Israel from the disintegrating Judean forces Shim'on bar-Kokhba massed what remained of his army in the fortress town of Betar. Among those with him in Betar was Rabbi El'azar ha-Moda'i. By this time El'azar was a very old man. The Talmud of Eretz-Israel [Ta'anit 24a] tells us that he spent his time in Betar in fasting and in unending prayer that Betar might withstand the Roman onslaught.

3:
Apparently, a Roman agent gained access to Betar through an underground tunnel and was seen approaching Rabbi El'azar and whispering something in his ear. The matter was reported to bar-Kokhba who questioned the agent closely. Since the agent refused to give any information the sage himself was questioned about the incident. Rabbi El'azar explained that he had no idea who this person was and had not paid attention to whatever it was that he had said to him since he (El'azar) was engrossed in his prayers. Bar-Kokhba must have suspected that Rabbi El'azar belonged to the Romanophile 'peace camp' (though there is no evidence for this) and he kicked the aged rabbi very hard. That kick proved fatal and Rabbi El'azar ha-Moda'i died from it before Betar fell to the Romans.

To be continued.

Jacob Chinitz relates to three issues that were raised in Avot 175.

We have three issues in this segment of the Mishnah Study Group:

• the idea that gut feeling about morality motivates Takanah;
• that Halakhah manages to find a way when this gut feeling exists;
• that Rambam is wrong when he demands correct belief, and Leibovitz is right when he demands behavioral conformism.

Is the “gut feeling” a matter of ethical conscience, external to Torah values? Or is it a feeling engendered by the rest of Torah, outside of the matter in question?

Specifically, was R. Gershom moved by immorality of the inferior position of women, or did he find something in existing Torah law which justified ruling in favor of monogamy? It is hard to say that it is the latter, because that inferiority emerges from the Torah text: Ki Yikach Ish Isha … Veshilcha Mibeito. The man initiates marriage and divorce. Is the Halakhic solution found by interpretation and manipulation of texts, or is change brought about by direct, confrontational Takanah, legislative alteration of existing law? Obviously, R. Gershom used the method of Takanah. If we assume that the legal authorities can legislate against existing Torah law, then what is being used is not Halakhic method, but an attack on existing Halakhah, by amendment.

While it is true that Rambam’s rigid theological and philosophical dogmatic demands would have ruled out the Besht and other Jews (of whom Raavad’s gloss claims they believed in a corporeal God), the position of Leibovitz is too mechanical and habitual. To say that the Jew who prays three times a day is the real Jew, but the Jew who doubts the efficacy of praying for health (including Leibovitz himself who said: Olom Keminhago Noheg, when he was offered prayers for his son’s recovery) is ruled out of the conforming community, is an impossible position to hold, in any age, especially ours.

I respond:

If I understand Jacob correctly I think that he is underscoring the fact that takkanah (such as that of Rabbenu Gershom outlawing bigamy) is rabbinic legislation which does not seek to base itself on interpretation of Torah but seeks to change existing halakhic behaviour by revolutionary innovation. In which case he and I (and Rambam and everyone else) are in complete agreement.

I think that Jacob misunderstood the quotation from Leibowitz which I brought in that shiur. It seems to me that all Leibowitz is saying is that even though there may be enormous philosophic and theological differences between the sages of the various generations all those who observe the mitzvot (regardless of the details of their theology) traditionally have been regarded as being 'within the pale' and part of the body of Judaism.