Unlike Howard, I found the stories of R' Eliezer b. Hyrcanus compelling. He leaves an affluent, even wealthy father who has no sympathy with his desire to study Torah, and he devotes himself to study even though he does not have enough money to feed himself. He goes hungry and hides his plight from the other members of the yeshiva community. (This is reminiscent of the story of Hillel endangering his life by listening at the yeshiva skylight when he lacks the money to participate directly.)
The attribute of study in which he excels is his retention of what he's learned. He's the "plastered cistern that loses not a drop" (text 84), and he is extraordinarily reluctant to state any halacha that he has not learned from his predecessors (texts 92-93). This is a difficult attribute for us, as we are more inclined to value creativity than massive memory. (Indeed, the tradition seems biased in the direction of creativity also -- see the comparison of R' Eliezer with R' Elazar b. Arach in chapter 2 of Avot, at about mishnayot 10-12.) But even we should be able to acknowledge the value of the retentive memory, and of the dedication to his teachers. (What's puzzling in the texts is that R' Eliezer himself is described as giving a highly creative drash in the presence of his father -- he said things that none of his listeners had ever heard before. Was his creativity purely the aggadic realm, and, if not, how do we reconcile this creativity with the halachic hesitancy described in texts 92-93?)
Yes, he's impatient with those who are less dedicated to study (text 94), but Hillel himself, usually thought of as the model of patience and forebearance, had a highly demanding side -- see most of the mishnayot about Hillel in Avot ch. 1-2.
Then there's the story of Akhnai's oven and its aftermath (text 98). R' Eliezer's ruling is endorsed by all of the miraculous signs, and by the bat kol, which is understood as God's own ruling. Yet the other sages all reject his position. In other words, he is, objectively, absolutely, right, but no one listens to him. The rejection of his position on this particular issue of ritual purity/impurity (tahor - tamei) is so through that the Sages then declare ritually impure (tamei) everything that he has previously ruled pure (tahor). Further, they excommunicate him. In his excommunication, God Himself continues to be on R' Eliezer's side -- that's why the crops are struck, wherever R' Eliezer glances is burnt, and even Rabban Gamliel has to rebuke the waves that threaten his boat. How can there not be pathos in the story of the person who's right, but is ignored and rejected?
When he takes sick, his students visit him, but they have to maintain their 4-cubit distance because of his excommunication (text 102). When R' Akiva says (text 101) that sufferings are dear (to God), we sense that the story is endorsing this view, and we must be moved even if we're uncomfortable with this theology. At R' Eliezer's death, he cries that he had so much Torah to teach and did not have the opportunity to do so, and this anguish evokes our pathos. That pathos is also evoked by the anguish of R' Akiva, who mourns him with Elisha's words upon the departure of Elijah.
True, his strength was in an area that is less in favor in our time. But the stories here are profoundly saddening, by showing us someone who was loved, but who was right and was rejected.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
Posts
7 comments:
I see these stories about R. Eliezer as describing the tension between law "bashamayim"-- the ideal law-- and law as it exists in the world. Even the tannaim are engaged in making accomodations to halacha to make it more practical, more feasible for the real world. The oven of achnai story is an example-- R. Eliezer is correct, but his ruling is so strict that it would make life difficult for anyone with an oven... So even while the text asserts that it is important to make these accomodations, it acknowledges that we lose something by having to compromise with the real world. R. Eliezer's suffering shows us that.
Except that R' Eliezer is the lenient one -- he rules that the oven is tahor.
True. Thanks for pointing out my error (lesson to me to read more carefully). But I do still think that R. Eliezer's stance about not innovating but only repeating statements he learned from his teachers dramatizes the conflict between ideal transmission of the law and the messy process of interpretation.
response to Richard:
Certainly his desire to study Torah is wonderful, but those who are so totally driven often try to set the same standard for everyone, a very dangerous trait.
In today's world of print and web, memory is less important not only in conjunction with creativity. My problem is that sticking to what was taught leads to too much conservatism and unwillingness to change. Often in today's world this only relates to leniency not additional stringency.
Hillel was demanding not nasty.
I am not sure that he was "right". Nor am I sure that G!d was on his side. The story itself of course, denies that when G!d says "my children have defeated me."
I think it was R"Eliezer's dedication and caring that gave him powers to destroy not requiring G!d's immediate intervention. Holiness were thought to give people definite powers. We have had many examples in our readings. It is not always clear that G!d needs to be directly involved. Here Richard may be attributing current thinking to the Rabbis.
The excommunication may have resulted from his continuing to teach his position, which I remember was a major "no no" (I don't remember the source but I think it was the Mishneh) In which case it was his stubbornness which led to his problems.
I still feel that refusing to accept the position of the others was hubris and desire for conservatism for either stringency or leniency.
I said: "I think it was R"Eliezer's dedication and caring that gave him powers to destroy not requiring G!d's immediate intervention. Holiness were thought to give people definite powers. We have had many examples in our readings. It is not always clear that G!d needs to be directly involved."
I just realized that there is an excellent example supporting my position. When Shimon bar Yochai and his son leave the cave, everything they gazed upon was burned up. G!d (a bat kol) put them back in the cave to prevent this. They had the power of destruction without G!d's support.
Responses to two of Howard's points:
1. Howard said, "I am not sure that he was 'right'. Nor am I sure that G!d was on his side. The story itself of course, denies that when G!d says 'my children have defeated me.'"
I'm not sure why Howard has any doubt about which side God was on. Unless you think that all of those miracles (the river flowing backward [before the engineering of the Chicago river], the uprooting carob tree, the tilting walls of the yeshiva) were performed by an evil spirit, or that the bat kol was an illusion, and there is _no_ indication in the text that either of these is the case, where else did they come from? The bat kol explicitly says that R' Eliezer is right.
I think the meaning of God's statement is precisely the opposite. God is not acknowledging that the majority was right. What's so wonderful about the story in terms of jurisprudence and philosophy is that it distinguishes between the right answer and the law. Our rule of law is that what is decided by the majority of the authorized decisors _is_ the law, regardless of whether it is "right" in some theoretical, absolute, or objective sense. And this is the story that shows that -- the _law_ is that the oven is tamei (technically, as Ben notes, susceptible of acquiring ritual impurity), even though the _right_ answer was that the oven should be tahor (not susceptible). God's
2. Howard said further, "I think it was R"Eliezer's dedication and caring that gave him powers to destroy not requiring G!d's immediate intervention. Holiness were thought to give people definite powers. We have had many examples in our readings. It is not always clear that G!d needs to be directly involved. Here Richard may be attributing current thinking to the Rabbis." And he cites the example of R' Shimon b. Yohai.
In the story of Shimon bar Yohai and R' Elazar his son (b.Shab. 33b), what is burnt is only the places on which they look. If, in the story of R' Eliezer, it said only that wherever he glanced was burnt, it might well be attributed to R' Eliezer's spiritual powers. Since the text says that crops were struck, and that waves threatened Rabban Gamliel's boat, without mentioning R' Eliezer's actions, I'm inclined to think that it's God acting here. However, I'm not sure that this reading is compelled.
I think the point made by the story is that G!d changes the rules for what is right as a result. Rightness becomes what the decisiors decide. The power of deciding right is transferred. So even though G!d may have originally agreed with Rabbi Eliezer, She changes the rules of engagement and supports their change.
One point about Shimon bar Yochai is that G!d cannot remove his power but can only tell him to go back into the cave. When they come out, it is R' Shimon who does the healing. The power is in the individual. Honi's story is similar, it seems as if G!d must listen to him when he asks for rain. G!d's sending "undesirable" rain tries to tell Honi that G1d doesn't want to send rain but Honi says do it anyway and do it right. Holiness has very great power.
I will comment further in my blog tomorrow on the ten martyrs.
Post a Comment