Adaptive Talmud Session #2: Identifying Technical vs. Adaptive Challenges The Day They Fired the Head of the Academy Rabba Yaffa Epstein April 1, 2020/ 7 Nissan 5780
Background on Rabban Gamliel and Rebbe Yehosha from Encylopaedia Judaica
Gamaliel, Rabban, Encyclopedia Judaica, Second Edition, Volume 7, Pp. 365-366 Gamaliel, Rabban, the name and title of six sages, descendants of *Hillel, who filled the office of nasi in Ereẓ Israel. RABBAN GAMALIEL II, also called Rabban Gamaliel of Jabneh, grandson of (1), succeeded *Johanan b. Zakkai as nasi c. 80 C.E. He saw his life’s work as the strengthening of the new center at Jabneh and the concentration and consolidation of the people around the Torah, constituting an authority that would be capable of filling the place of the Temple and of the Sanhedrin which had met in the Chamber of Hewn Stones. To this end he worked energetically for the elevation of the dignity of the nasi’s office, and for the unification of halakhah. The Talmud reports a heavenly voice “that was heard in Jabneh” establishing the halakhah in accordance with Bet Hillel (Er. 13b; TJ, Ber. 1:7, 3b), corresponding to the aims of much of Gamaliel’s activity. It also describes his vigorous exertions as not directed to increasing his own honor or that of his household, but rather to preserving the unity of the nation and the Torah (BM 59b). In his private life and in his personal relationships he was modest and easygoing, showed love and respect toward his pupils and friends, and even to his slave, and was tolerant of gentiles (Tosef, BK 9:30; Ber. 2:7; Sanh. 104b; et al.; Sif. Deut. 38). In respect to laws and prohibitions he was at times lenient to others and strict with himself (Ber. 2:6; TJ, Ber. 1:2, 3a). In spite of this, his firmness as nasi and his endeavors to increase the power of the new center aroused the strong opposition of the elder scholars of his generation. According to later talmudic tradition this led to a severe struggle in which Gamaliel did not hesitate to excommunicate his own brotherin-law, *Eliezer b. Hyrcanus (BM 59b). Of greatest consequence was Gamaliel’s dispute with *Joshua b. Hananiah on the fixing of the new moon (see *Calendar). Gamaliel regarded the affair as a test of the authority of his bet din and ordered R. Joshua to demonstrate publicly that he accepted the discipline of the nasi: “I charge you to appear before me with your staff and your money on the day which according to your reckoning should be the Day of Atonement.” On the advice of his colleagues, Akiva and Dosa b. Harkinas, R. Joshua bowed to the command. When he came before Rabban Gamaliel, the nasi rose, kissed him on his head and said to him: “Come in peace my teacher and pupil – my teacher in wisdom and my pupil because you have accepted my decision” (RH 2:8–9). From this passage in the Mishnah it would seem that the tensions between Gamaliel and Joshua had been resolved. According to the Talmud, however, they did not cease with this affair. The firmness of Gamaliel was regarded by most of the scholars as an insult to the dignity of R. Joshua and led to a revolt against his authority which ended with his removal from the office of nasi and the appointment of *Eleazar b. Azariah in his place (Ber. 27b–28a). The nobility of Rabban Gamaliel’s character was vindicated, however, by his not absenting himself from bet ha-midrash and by his participation in the establishment of the halakhah under the direction of the new nasi. In the end Gamaliel appeased Joshua, and the scholars, meeting him halfway “out of respect for his father’s house,” reinstated him as nasi. According to the Jerusalem Talmud (Ber. 4:1) he alone was nasi, Eleazar b. Azariah only serving as his deputy, av bet din, but according to the Babylonian Talmud (ibid.) Eleazar b. Azariah continued to share the post of nasi with him. Rabban Gamaliel was recognized as one of the greatest scholars of his generation by his colleagues, by his many pupils, and even by his opponents. His halakhic pronouncements, among them traditions from his father and grandfather, are abundantly cited in the Mishnah and beraitot. His activity, together with that of his colleagues and pupils in Jabneh, laid the foundation of the Mishnah. Exceptionally important takkanot with respect to religion and worship are associated with the name of Rabban Gamaliel, their aim being to face up to the new reality created by the destruction of the Temple by the implementation of laws and customs designed to serve as a “reminder of the Temple.” Rabban Gamaliel played a large part in formulating Passover eve ceremonial after the destruction of the Temple (Pes. 10:5), in determining the final version of the 18 benedictions (*Amidah), in making it a duty for each individual to pray, and in deciding in favor of the custom of praying three times a day. It is clear that Rabban Gamaliel was close to the general culture and learning of his time, permitting among other things the study of Greek (Tosef., Sot. 15:8). His son Simeon’s testimony that many youngsters studied Greek wisdom in his father’s house (Sot. 49b) seemed incomprehensible to the scholars, who later explained the phenomenon in terms of the political activity of the nasi and in the light of the need to maintain good relations with the ruling powers. He did not refrain from bathing in the bathhouse of Aphrodite in Acre, regarding the image there as serving a decorative purpose only (Av. Zar. 3:4). Gamaliel’s son, Ḥanina, testified that it was customary in his father’s house to use seals which had figures in relief (TJ, Av. Zar. 3:1, 42c). He was apparently also acquainted with the principles of Greek science. He used astronomical diagrams to examine the witnesses of the new moon (RH 2:8), and he fashioned an instrument to measure distances (ER. 43b). Gamaliel was not only the chief religious authority but also the recognized national-political leader. It is probable that the Roman government also recognized him as the spokesman of the Jews. In any event he made journeys – either alone or in the company of other scholars – to the governor in Syria to receive “authority” (Eduy. 7:7; Sanh. 11a) and also to Rome in order to intercede for his people (TJ, Sanh. 7:19, 25d). In his contacts with non-Jews, he also appeared as the spokesman of Judaism in its battle against idolatry and heresy (Av. Zar. 3:4, 4:7, et al.). Associated with his name is the introduction of the *Birkat ha-Minim in the Amidah, aimed at excluding the Christians from the Jewish fold (Ber. 28b; Meg. 17b). The year of his death is not known, but in all probability he did not live to witness the revolt in the time of Trajan (c. 116 C.E.). The life and death of the great nasi are embellished in the aggadah. Tradition assigns to him the great takkanah – on behalf of the poor – of abrogating ornate and expensive funerals and introducing the practice of burying the dead in simple flaxen raiment.
Joshua Ben Hananiah, Encyclopaedia Judaica, Second Edition, Volume 11, 450 – 452 Joshua Ben Hananiah (first and second centuries C.E.), tanna. One of the five disciples of Johanan b. Zakkai's inner circle, he was as noted for the logical acumen of his halakhic formulations as he was for his worldly wisdom. His career in the academy and public life offers illuminating insights into both his times and his personal temper. Dosa b. Harkinas stated that when Joshua was still an infant his mother used to bring him to the synagogue so that "his ears might become accustomed to the words of Torah" (TJ, Yev. 1:6, 3a). Possibly it was in reference to this pious act that Johanan b. Zakkai said "happy is she who bore him" (Avot 2:8). As a levite (Ma'as. Sh. 5:9), he served as a chorister in the Temple (Ar. 11b). Since Levites commenced their service in the Temple at the age of 30 (Num. 4:3; Hul. 24a), it may be assumed that he was at least 30 years of age at the time of the destruction of the Temple. Drawing on his experience in the Temple, he gives a vivid eye-witness description of the rejoicing at the water-drawing ceremony (Suk. 53a). His ordination by Johanan b. Zakkai took place before the destruction of the Temple (TJ, Sanh. 1:2, 19a) since there is a ruling by him on a ritual question arising from an incident that occurred in Temple times (TJ, Sanh. 1:2, 19a and Zev. 113a). He with Eliezer b. Hyrcanus carried Johanan b. Zakkai out of besieged Jerusalem in a coffin so that the latter might meet Vespasian (Git. 56a). Subsequently, he returned to the city to help bring out R. Zadok (Lam. R. 1:5, 31). On the basis of this and other episodes in his life, it may be safely assumed that he completely supported Johanan b. Zakkai in his peace policy toward the Romans. After the destruction of the Temple, Joshua settled in Peki'in, a small town between Jabneh and Lydda, establishing there a bet din (Sanh. 32a) which he headed (BK 74b). Despite his preeminence in academic circles, he lived a life of poverty and earned his living as a blacksmith (Bet. 28a; according to the Jerusalem Talmud (Ber. 4:1, 7d) as a "maker of needles"). Of a peace-loving, humble disposition, he submitted to the authority of Rabban Gamaliel, the head of the Sanhedrin in Jabneh, though he disagreed with the latter in a matter as fundamental as the date of the Day of Atonement (RH 2:9). On two other occasions, Gamaliel publicly embarrassed him in the academy in the course of a disputation on a point of law. As a result of these studied offenses, Gamaliel was deposed from office. Following a reconciliation of the two scholars, Joshua was among those who insisted that Gamaliel be reinstated as head of the Sanhedrin, though he now had to share the office with Eleazar b. Azariah (Ber. 28a), who had been appointed during the interregnum. The halakhic opinions of Joshua are to be found throughout the Talmud although most of them are concentrated in the order of Kodashim. Several collections of his halakhot are embodied in the Mishnah. Thus, most of tractate Kinim, with the exception of a few later additions, represents his teachings. His most famous halakhic controversy, one that reveals rationalistic attitude toward the Law, is that with R. Eliezer b. Hyrcanus in the case of the "oven of Akhnai." Joshua joined his colleagues in declaring it ritually unclean against Eliezer's determined insistence on its ritual purity. To uphold his opinion, the latter invoked a bat kol which proclaimed the halakhah to be in accordance with his viewpoint. Whereupon Joshua exclaimed, "It [the Torah] is not in heaven" (Deut. 30:12) and hence, in determining the law "we pay no attention to a heavenly voice" (BK 59b). In his halakhic interpretation of Scripture, Joshua generally followed the literal meaning of the verse as suggested by its immediate context. His rulings reveal a clear tendency to follow the interpretations of Bet Hillel. Thus, for example, he adopted their liberal attitude toward the acceptance of proselytes. He is said to have kept the proselyte Aquila within the fold by his encouraging reply to the latter's question of the future reward a proselyte might expect (Gen. R. 70:5). Similarly, he accepted into Judaism a woman proselyte who because of her immoral past had been peremptorily rejected by Eliezer b. Hyrcanus (Eccles. R. 1:8; 4). His liberality of spirit is reflected in his statement that "pious gentiles have a share in the world to come" (Tosef. Sanh. 13:2). Consistent with this liberality is his rejection of the rigorous asceticism urged by some—an asceticism that would forbid the eating of meat and the drinking of wine—as an expression of mourning for the destruction of the Temple. He recommended, instead, symbolic mourning observances (BB 60b). He likewise viewed with disfavor the 18 new restrictions enacted by Bet Shammai on the eve of the fall of the Temple, declaring that "On that day they poured water into a vessel full of oil, causing the precious oil to spill over and run to waste" (TJ, Shab. 1:5, 3c; cf. Shab. 153b). In the same vein, he condemned the kind of foolish piety, especially characteristic of women of his time, stating that it brought destruction upon the world (Sot. 3:4). His leading role is evidenced by his participation in a number of missions from Jerusalem in the company of Gamaliel and Eleazar b. Azariah to Rome. These missions may conceivably have involved some specific diplomatic purpose in addition to strengthening the bonds between the Jewish Diaspora and Jerusalem. In the course of these visits, he is reported to have engaged in discussions on both theological and quasi-scientific matters with eminent non-Jews, notably, the emperor Hadrian and the "elders" of Athens (Bekh. 8b; cf. Ein Ya'akov ad loc.). His discussions with the Roman emperor are preserved in the Babylonian Talmud (Hul. 59b–60a) and Palestinian Midrashim (see Hadrian in aggadah). In Alexandria, 12 questions in halakhah, aggadah and practical matters were posed to him by members of the local Jewish community (Nid. 69b–70a). He was especially noted for his polemics with Jewish-Christian sectarians. In this context, it must be recalled that he lived at the time when the final separation of Christianity from Judaism was taking place. This fact lends a certain historic significance to these polemics (Shab. 152a; Hag. 5b). His skill and wit in parrying the challenge of the early Christians and pagans were such as to prompt the rabbis to exclaim at his death: "What will become of us now at the hands of the nonbelievers?" (Hag. 5b). In retrospect, the Sages declared that "Since R. Joshua died, good counsel has ceased in Israel" (Tosef. Sot. 15:3). His last public service as acknowledged leader, a role to which he appears to have succeeded following the death of Gamaliel, was to avert the wrath of the people from bursting into open rebellion against Rome when Hadrian rescinded permission to rebuild the Temple. In his effort to pacify the enraged assembly, which had gathered in Bet Rimmon, he employed the famous fable of the crane that had extracted a thorn from the throat of a lion and upon demanding his reward was told by the lion "be satisfied that I allowed you to live" (Gen. R. 64:10). Joshua's death shortly before the outbreak of the Bar Kokhba rebellion probably contributed toward the dominant position gained by the pro-war party led by his disciple R. Akiva. His activity as an aggadic interpreter is reflected in the large collection of such statements to be found in tannaitic literature. His disputants in this area were Eliezer b. Hyrcanus and Eliezer of Modi'in. Their respective interpretations form a sustained double commentary in many sections of the Mekhilta (e.g., Va-Yassa). His more famous aggadic dicta include: "An evil eye and the evil impulse and hatred of one's fellow man drive a man out of the world" (i.e., shorten his life; Avot 2:11); "If Israel does not repent, God will appoint a king as oppressive as Haman. Israel will then repent and be redeemed" (Sanh. 97b). In response to the question posed by Johanan b. Zakkai, "What is the proper path that a man should follow?" Joshua replied, "Let him acquire a good friend" (Avot 2:11). Joshua's learning encompassed a considerable knowledge of Greek, mathematics, and astronomy. In the former area, he is said to have assisted Aquila in his translation of the Pentateuch into Greek (TJ, Meg. 1:3). What specific form this help took is uncertain. His successful prediction of the appearance of a comet (probably Hailey's comet; Hor. 10a) bespeaks a knowledge of mathematics and astronomy as does his membership in the Sanhedrin, since the latter body was responsible for the fixing and intercalation of the calendar.