Must the Patriarch Know 'Uqtzin? The as Scholar in Babylonian Aggada

Devora Steinmetz; Beit Rabban

AJS Review, Vol. 23, No. 2. (1998), pp. 163-189.

Stable URL: http://links.jstor.org/sici?sici=0364-0094%281998%2923%3A2%3C163%3AMTPK%27T%3E2.0.CO%3B2-4

AJS Review is currently published by Cambridge University Press.

Your use of the JSTOR archive indicates your acceptance of JSTOR's Terms and Conditions of Use, available at http://www.jstor.org/about/terms.html. JSTOR's Terms and Conditions of Use provides, in part, that unless you have obtained prior permission, you may not download an entire issue of a journal or multiple copies of articles, and you may use content in the JSTOR archive only for your personal, non-commercial use.

Please contact the publisher regarding any further use of this work. Publisher contact information may be obtained at http://www.jstor.org/journals/cup.html.

Each copy of any part of a JSTOR transmission must contain the same copyright notice that appears on the screen or printed page of such transmission.

The JSTOR Archive is a trusted digital repository providing for long-term preservation and access to leading academic journals and scholarly literature from around the world. The Archive is supported by libraries, scholarly societies, publishers, and foundations. It is an initiative of JSTOR, a not-for-profit organization with a mission to help the scholarly community take advantage of advances in technology. For more information regarding JSTOR, please contact [email protected].

http://www.jstor.org Sat Sep 15 16:12:29 2007 MUST THE PATRIARCH KNOW 'UQTZIN? THE NASI AS SCHOLAR IN BABYLONIAN AGGADA

DEVORA STEINMETZ

"My son Shimeon [shall be the] hakham; my son Gamaliel [shall be the] nasi." . . . What was he saying? Thus was he saying: "Even though my son Shimeon [is] hakham, my son Gamaliel [shall be the] nasi." Levi said: "Was it necessary to say this?" R. Shimeon son of said: "Do we need you and your limping?" What was difficult for him? Scripture says: "And he gave the kingdom to Yehoram, for he was the firstborn" (I1 Chron 2 1:3)! He [Yehoram] filled the place of his forefathers, but R. Gamaliel did not fill the place of his forefathers. And why did Rabbi do this? Granted that he did not fill his forefathers' place in wisdom, but he did fill his forefathers' place in fear of sin. (bKetubot l03b)'

A cited in both the Palestinian and the Babylonian Talmud2 (pKetubot 12:3, 34d-35a = pKil'aim 9:4, 32a-b; bKetubot 103a-b) describes Rabbi's dying testament to his sons. In the Babylonian version, Rabbi designates his elder son, Gamaliel, as his successor, and his younger son, Shimeon, as the next h~kharn.~In its analysis of this part of the testament, the BT interprets Rabbi's declaration, which begins, curiously, with the younger

1. All translations are my own. I have attempted throughout to translate as literally as possible, to allow for analysis of linguistic and structural detail. 2. Hereafter referred to as PT and BT. 3. Whether or not the word hakham refers to a specific position of authority is a matter of debate. See David Goodblatt, " 'A1 Sippur ha-'Qesher' Neged Rabban Shim'eon ben Gamali'el ha-Sheni," Zion 49 (1984): 362-365. It is noteworthy that in the BT's discussion of Rabbi's choice, the word hakham seems to be used as a predicate adjective, "wise," and not in the sense of any position. This use, however, is probably an exegetical play, as later in the discussion the BT speaks of sidrei hakhma as well as sidrei nesi'ut. Ephraim E. Urbach, in The Sages: Their Concepts and Beliefs [Hebrew] (, 1971), p. 538, sees in Rabbi's testament a separation of political and academic functions, similar to that which existed in Babylonia. The

AJS Review 2312 (1998): 163-190 163 164 DEVORA STEINMETZ son and the lesser position, as concessive: although the younger son is wise, the elder shall be the patriarch. In the continuation of this discussion, the manifests its concern over Gamaliel's appointment: Gamaliel does not "fill his forefathers' place in wisdom." This problem is so great, according to the BT, that it would negate the elder son's claim to the dynastic position were it not that Gamaliel has another quality, "fear of sin," with respect to which he does, in fact, "fill his forefathers' place." This discussion of Rabbi's designation has no parallel in the PT. The BT's discussion underscores a notion which appears many times in the BT and, indeed, seems to be peculiar to Babylonian tradition: that the crucial quality of the patriarch, without which he may be considered unworthy of his position, is hokhma, wisdom and knowledge. For the PT, it appears, the fact that a man has been designated nasi as his father's successor is sufficient. The BT, however, underscores the academic nature of the position. The patriarch is not only a political leader; he must also be a scholar, a man worthy of being resh metivta. It is the BT's highlighting of the academic nature of the patriarchate that I want to demonstrate in this study; how a difference in perspective between the two may have come about is difficult to ascertain, but I will discuss two possibilities at the conclusion of the study. In order to investigate the BT's unique perception of the patriarch, I will focus on passages that describe challenges to the nasi. Both Talmuds contain a great number of such passageq4 I will limit the present study to passages that describe a conflict with the patriarch which takes place, as a central element of the story, within the bet or bet hava 'ad. These narratives, which place the nasi in his setting as nasi, will allow the most fruitful analysis of the perception of his position. The bulk of the study will be devoted to the longest and most detailed of these narratives, the story of the deposing of R. Gamaliel's in Tractate Berakh~t.~A briefer analysis

BT, though, sees the patriarchate as still including the academic function; hence the puzzlement over Rabbi's choice of his less wise son as patriarch. 4. For examples of challenges to the patriarch, see Albert Baumgarten, "The Akiban Opposition," Hebrew Union College Annual 50 (1979): 17S197, and "Rabbi Judah I and His Opponents," Journal for the Study ofJudaism 12 (1981): 135-172; Moshe Beer, "Kavod u-Vikoret," Proceedings of the American Academyfor Jewish Research 38-39 (197C-1971): 47-57; Lee I. Levine, The Rabbinic Class in During the Talmudic Period [Hebrew] (Jerusalem, 1985), pp. 126-128. 5. For comparisons of the Palestinian and Babylonian versions of this story using methods different from my own primarily literary analysis, see , Perushim ve-Chidushim THE ,VASI AS SCHOLAR IN BABYLONIAN AGGADA 165

of some other passages will come next, followed by a conclusion about the perception of the patriarchate in the BT.

[A] Our taught: It happened that [aI6And it happened that a certain student a certain student came before R. Joshua. came and asked R. Joshua: "What is [the He said to him: "Is the evening prayer law concerning] the evening prayer?" He optional or compulsory?" He said to him: said to him: "Optional." He came and "Optional." He came before R. Gamaliel. asked R. Gamaliel: "What is [the law He said to him: "Is the evening prayer concerning] the evening prayer?" He said optional or compulsory?" He said to him: to him: "Compulsory." He said to him: "Compulsory." He said to him: "But R. "But R. Joshua told me 'Optional'!" He Joshua told me 'optional'!" He said to said to him: "Tomorrow, when I enter the him: "Wait until the shield-bearers enter bet hava 'ad, stand and ask this law." the bet midrash."

[B] When the shield-bearers entered, [b] On the next day, that student stood the questioner stood and asked: "Is the and asked R. Gamaliel: "What is [the evening prayer optional or compulsory?" law concerning] the evening prayer?" He R. Gamaliel said to him: "Compulsory." said to him: "Compulsory." He said to R. Gamaliel said to the sages: "Is there him: "But R. Joshua told me 'optional'!" anyone who disagrees concerning this R. Gamaliel said to R. Joshua: "Is it you matter?" R. Joshua said to him: "No." He who says 'optional'?" He said to him: said to him: "But they told me 'optional' "No." He said to him: "Stand on your in your name!" He said to him: "Joshua, feet, and let them testify against you." stand on your feet, and let them testify against you."

[C] R. Joshua stood on his feet and said: "If I were alive and he deacCthe living can contradict the dead. But now that I am alive and he is alivehow can the living contradict the living?" bi-Yrzishalmi, vol. 3 (New York, 1941), pp. 174-220, and Robert Goldenberg, "The Deposition of Rabban Gamaliel 11: An Examination of the Sources," Journal ofJewish Studies 23 (1972): 167-190. Iwill be less concerned with how the differences between the versions came about than with how they function within the framework of each narrative version. 6. The lettering of the sections of the PT narrative indicates parallels to the sections of the BT narrative. 166 DEVORA STEINMETZ

[Dl R. Gamaliel was sitting and teaching, [dl And R. Gamaliel was sitting and and R. Joshua was standing on his feet, teaching, and R. Joshua was standing until all the people shouted and said on his feet, until all the people shouted to Huzpit the turgeman: "Stop," and he and said to R. Huzpit the meturgeman: stopped.' They said: "How long will he "Dismiss the people." They said to R. go on troubling him? In Rosh Hashana, Zenon the hazzan: "Say 'Begin'"; and last year he troubled him; in Bekhorot, he he said: "Begin."[?-This passage is troubled him in the matter of R. Zadok;8 obscure.] And all the people stood on now too he troubles him. Let us remove their feet and said to him: "'For upon him. whom has your evil not come always?' " (Nahum 3: 19)

[El "Whom shall we appoint? Shall we [fl They went and appointed R. Elazar b. appoint R. Joshua?-he is involved in Azaria to the academy (yeshiva). He was the matter. Shall we appoint R. Aqiva? sixteen years old, and his whole head -he might be punished, because he became full of gray hair. has no ancestral merit. Rather, we shall [el And R. Aqiva was sitting and feeling appoint R. Elazar b. Azaria, for he is troubled, and he said: "It is not that he wise [hakham], and he is rich, and he is a more learned man than I, but he is is tenth [in descent] from Ezra." He is more a descendant of great people than I. wise-if one asks him, he can answer Happy is the man whose forefathers have him. And he is rickif he has to go to gained privilege for him! Happy is the the court of the Caesar to pay honor, he man who has a peg on which to hang!" too can go pay honor. And he is tenth And what was R. Elazar b. Azaria's peg? [in descent] from Ezra-he has ancestral That he was the tenth generation from merit, and he cannot be punished. Ezra.

[F] They went and said to him: "Is it agreeable to the master to become head of the academy [resh meti~ta]?"~He said to them: "I will go and consult my family." He went and consulted his wife. She said to him: "Perhaps they

7. Lit. " 'Stand,' and he stood"+s R. Joshua had been forced to do. 8. I have translated Rosh Hashana and Bekhorot as referring to the tractates by those names in which similar stories of R. Joshua's humiliation by R. Gamaliel appear (rnRosh Hashana 2:&9 and bBekhorot 36a). See Goldenberg, "Deposition of Rabban Gamaliel 11," p. 172. They may, however, refer to the issues under controversy. 9. Isaiah Gafni discusses the variant denimlikh and its equivalence to the phrase in the printed text in "Yeshiva and Metivta" [Hebrew], Zion 43 (1978): 32. THE NASI AS SCHOLAR IN BABYLONIAN AGGADA will remove you." He said to her: "Let a man use a valuable cup for one day, and let it be broken on the next." She said to him: "You have no white hair." That day he was eighteen years old. A miracle occurred to him, and eighteen rows of his hair turned white. And that is why R. Elazar b. Azaria said: "Behold, I am as if seventy years old''-and not "seventy years old."

[GI It was taught: That day they removed [g] And how many benches were there? the doorkeeper, and permission was given R. b. Sisi said: "There were eighty to the students to enter. For R. Gamaliel benches of scholars there, excluding used to announce, saying: "Any student those standing behind the fence." R. whose inside is not like his outside shall Yosi b. Abun said: "There were 300 not enter the bet midrash." That day there, excluding those standing behind z number of benches were added. R. the fence." Yochanan said: "Abba Joseph and the rabbis dispute this; one said 400 benches, and one said 700 benches."

[HI R. Gamaliel's mind was disturbed. He said: "Perhaps, God forbid, I have withheld from Israel." He was shown in a dream white casks filled with ashes. But it was not so; that was shown to him to settle his mind.

[G'] It was taught: 'Eduyot was studied [g'] As we learn there: On the day that on that day-and wherever we say "on they seated R. Elazar b. Azaria in the that day," it was on that daylo-and there academy keshiva]." We learn there:

10. Y. N. Epstein,Mevo 'otle-Sifrutha-Tanna'im (JerusalemandTel Aviv, 1964),pp. 422-425, discusses the meaning of the phrase "on that day," suggesting that it should not be understood literally. Ephraim E. Urbach suggests that the phrase here translated "'Eduyot was studied on that day" means that "testimonies" beginning with the words "on that day" were taught on that very day; see his "Class-Status and Leadership in the World of the Palestinian Sages," Proceedings of the Israel Academy ofSciences and Humanities 2 (1 968): 59 n. 44. The notion that Tractate 'Eduyot was, for the purposes of this narrative, taught on the day the rabbis took over and opened up the bet midrash is enticing in view of the tractate's traditional 168 DEVORA STETNMETZ was no law which had been left hanging This midrash R. Elazar b. Azaria taught in the bet midrash which they did not before the sages in Kerem beYavneh. explicate. And even R. Gamaliel did not And was there a vineyard [kerem]there? withhold himself from the bet midrash Rather, these are the scholars who used even for a moment, as we learn: On that to be arranged in rows, like a vineyard. day, Judah the Ammonite proselyte came before them in the bet midrash. He said to them: "Am I permitted to enter the congre- gation?" R. Gamaliel said to him: "You are forbidden to enter the congregation." R. Joshua said to him: "You are permitted to enter the congregation." R. Gamaliel said to him: "But it has already been said: 'An Ammonite or a Moabite shall not enter the congregation of the Lord' (Deut 23:4)." R. Joshua said to him: "And are Amrnon and Moab still dwelling in their places? Sennacherib, king of Assyria, already has gone up and mixed up all of the nations, as it is said: 'And I have removed the boundaries of peoples and have plundered their treasures, and I have brought down their inhabitants as a mighty one' (Isa 10:13bandanything that is separated, is separated from the majority." R. Gamaliel said to him: "But it already has been said: 'And afterward I shall return the captiv- ity of the children of Arnrnon, says the Lord' (Jer 49:6tand they already have returned." R. Joshua said to him: "But it already has been said: 'And I shall return the captivity of my people Israel' (Amos 9:14tand they have not yet returned." Immediately, they permitted him to enter the congregation.

agenda of resolving--or at least freezing-rampant controversy (t'Eduyot 1: 1) as well as of the tractate's affirmation of respect for dissenters and the inclusion of all of Israel ('Eduyot 1:4; 8:7). 11. For a discussion ofthe meaning of this term in Palestinian sources and a citation of earlier literature on this subject, see Gafni, "Yeshiva and Mefivfa,"pp. 17-20. THE NASl AS SCHOLAR IN BABYLONIAN AGGADA 169

[F'] R. Gamaliel said: "Since it is thus, I [f'] Immediately, R. Gamaliel went to will go and appease R. Joshua." When he each one to appease him in his house. He came to his house, he saw that the walls went to R. Joshua. He found him sitting of his house were blackened. He said to and making needles. He said to him: him: "From the walls of your house it is "Are these how you make a living?" apparent that you are a charcoal-burner [or: smith] ."

[E'] He said to him: "Woe to the [e'] He said to him: "And until now you generation of which you are the leader, need to know! Woe to the generation of for you do not know of the troubles of which you are the leader!" He said to scholars, how they support themselves him: "I submit to you." and how they sustain themselves." He said to him: "I submit to you; forgive me." He paid no attention to him. "Do it for the honor of my father." He was appeased. They said: "Who will go and tell the rabbis?"

[D'] A certain washerman said to them: [d'] And they sent to R. Elazar b. Azaria "I shall go." R. Joshua sent to the a certain launderer, and some say it was bet midrash: "Let him who wears the R. Aqiva. garment wear the garment; but shall he who does not wear the garment say to him who wears the garment: 'Take off your garment, and I shall wear it'?" R. Aqiva said to the rabbis: "Bolt the doors, so that the servants of R. Gamaliel do not come and trouble the rabbis."

[C'] R. Joshua said: "It is better that I [c'] He said to him: "Let the sprinkler get up and go to them." He came and son of a sprinkler sprinkle; but shall he knocked on the gate. He said to him: "Let who is neither a sprinkler nor the son of the sprinkler son of a sprinkler sprinkle; a sprinkler say to the sprinkler son of but shall he who is neither a sprinkler a sprinkler: 'your water is cave water, nor the son of a sprinkler say to the and your ashes are from roasting'?" He sprinkler son of a sprinkler: 'Your water is said to them: "Are you satisfied? I and cave water, and your ashes are from you will rise early to the door of R. roasting'?" R. Aqiva said to him: "R. Gamaliel." Joshua, have you been appeased? Have DEVORA STEINMETZ we done anything other than for your honor? Tomorrow, I and you will rise early to his door." [B'] They said: "What shall we do? Shall [b'] Nevertheless, they did not depose we remove him? We learn [or: have a him from his greatness; rather, they tradition] that one increases in sanctity appointed him 'av bet din. but does not decrease. Shall one master teach one Sabbath, and one master one Sabbath? That will lead to jealousy. Rather, let R. Gamaliel teach three [or: two] Sabbaths, and R. Elazar b. Azaria one Sabbath." And this is what a master said: "Whose Sabbath was it? It was R. Elazar b. Azaria's."

[A'] And that student was R. Shimeon b. Yohai.

The Babylonian version of this story is, clearly, a well-wrought literary construct. One obvious indication of the literary reworking of the story is the presence of groupings of three: three occasions on which R. Gamaliel humiliates R. Joshua, three choices of whom to appoint in R. Gamaliel's place, three qualities possessed by R. Elazar b. Azaria, three options of what to do with R. Elazar b. Azaria after R. Gamaliel's apology is accepted. The Babylonian version has been reworked as a narrative more than the Palestinian version,12 and I will employ a literary analysis to help uncover the meaning of the Babylonian narrative. However, the differences in meaning between the two versions should not be attributed simply to a difference in artistry; rather, I will suggest that an analysis of the Babylonian narrative, and especially of the features which appear in it, but not in the Palestinian version, reveals different primary concerns in the two versions. While the Palestinian story sees the patriarchate as a position of authority, the Babylonian story is concerned first and foremost with Torah study, and the patriarch is evaluated in terms of that concern.

12. For the relationship between the two versions, see Goldenberg, "Deposition of Rabban Gamaliel 11," p. 188, and Shaye J. D. Cohen, "Patriarchs and Scholars," Proceedings ofthe American Academy for Jewish Research 48 (1981): 84-85. THE NASl AS SCHOLAR IN BABYLONIAN AGGADA 171

An outline of the structure of the Babylonian narrative may be helpful in introducing the themes which pervade the narrative. In addition, the outline will demonstrate another literary feature of the narrative, chiastic structure.I3 I have organized the segments of the narrative in corresponding pairs to highlight this feature.

[A] An anonymous student instigates the event [A'] The student is identifiedi4

[B] The bet midrash consists of "shield-bearers" and is a place of conflict15 [B'] To avoid conflict, a compromise is made

13. Chiastic structure has been shown to be a feature of many ancient and classical texts. For some examples of chiasm in biblical texts, see Umberto Cassuto, A Commentary on the Book of Genesis: From Noah to Abraham, trans. Israel Abrahams (Jerusalem, 1964); Fishbane, Text and Texture (New York, 1979); Jacob Milgrom, The JPS Torah Commentaly: Numbers (Philadelphia, 1990); Gary A. Rendsburg, The Redaction of Genesis (Winona Lake, Mim., 1986); Devora Steinmetz, From Father to Son: Kinship, Conflict, and Continuity in Genesis (Louisville, Ky., 1991). A number of scholars have noted chiasm in rabbinic texts; see, for example, Norman J. Cohen, "Structural Analysis of a Talmudic Story: Joseph-Who-Honors-the-Sabbath," Jewish Quarterly Review 72 (1982): 161-177, and Fraenkel, Darkhei ha- 'Aggada veha-Midrash (Jerusalem, 1991), pp. 263-269 and 307. Whether chiastic form itself has meaning, at least in some cases, other than the obvious resolution of the first part of the narrative in the second part, is an interesting question. I have suggested that there is a specific meaning in the chiastic structure of the patriarchal narratives in Genesis; see From Father to Son, pp. 6C-87. Chiasm might be seen as a particularly appropriate form for the Berakhot narrative, given the centrality of the motif of inside and outside discussed below. (Note that, as indicated below, while we at first might expect a structure of the form A B C D E F G H A' B' . . . ,with the first part of the second half of the narrative replicating the kind of dissension with which the narrative begins, we find, instead, the structure A B C D E F G H G' F' . . . ,with the first part of the second half of the narrative signaling a sharp departure from the events at the beginning of the narrative; once again, this time on a structural level, the inside is not like the outside, as the very inside of the narrative, segment [HI, makes clear!) Compare, in this regard, the story in bBava Batra 8a, mentioned by Fraenkel in his discussion of chiasm, in which Rabbi initially opens his stores of food to scholars but closes them to 'amei ha 'aretz; he finally opens his storehouse when he is challenged by a scholar posing as an 'am ha hretz and is shown his error by his son Shimeon. 14. In some versions, this does not appear at the end of the passage. 15. Jacob Neusner, A History of the Jews in Babylonia, vol. 3 (Leiden, 1968), p. 196, notes the frequent use of "military terminology" for "the academic discourse." Here, however, the term seems especially apt for its context of conflict within the bet midrash. For a discussion of the term translated here as "shield-bearers," see Ginzberg, Perushim ve-Chidushim, p. 175. 172 DEVORA STEINMETZ

[C] R. Joshua's rhetorical question about "the living" and "the dead" [C'] R. Joshua's rhetorical question about "the sprinkler"

[DiE] Removal of R. Gamaliel, who "troubles" R. Joshua; question of who can replace R. Gamaliel; appearance of R. Aqiva [E'iD'] Acceptance of apology of R. Gamaliel, who at first is unable to recognize the "troubles" of scholars like R. Joshua; question of whom to send on behalf of R. Gamaliel; appearance of R. Aqiva (Note that [[E'], [D'], and [C'] are linked: [D'] includes an additional rhetorical question, as in [C']; [C'] includes an additional appearance of R. Aqiva, as in [D']; "trouble" appears in both [E'] and [D'] (and note the implicit concern in [El for protection against the "trouble" explicitly mentioned in [Dl; "trouble" is explicitly referred to in [el). Thus, the three sections are intertwined and together parallel the contents of [C], [Dl, and [El. While I have divided this segment into three sections, it is perhaps better to see [E'iD'IC'] as constituting a single section which parallels [CIDiE].)

[F] R. Elazar b. Azaria is apparently unfit to be a leader; his hair is not white [F'] R. Joshua is apparently unfit to be a scholar; the walls of his house are black

[GI Students are allowed to enter the bet midrash; R. Gamaliel's procla- mation is overridden [G'] The Ammonite proselyte is permitted to enter the congregation; R. Gamaliel's ruling is overridden

[HI R. Gamaliel's concern about having withheld Torah; his false dream about the white casks filled with ashes

Chiastic structure presents the second half of a narrative as a response to the first half; here, the second half of the narrative works out a resolution to the problem set out at the beginning of the narrative. The story begins with conflict in the bet midrash; R. Gamaliel "troubles" a Torah scholar and so must be removed from his position as resh metivta.I6 The story is resolved

16. See Ginzberg, Perushim ve-Chidushim,pp. 193-197, for a discussion of which office is in question here and, especially, in the Palestinian version. Ginzberg does not differentiate between the two versions on this point; he sees the problem as historical, not as a matter of narrative emphasis. THE NASI AS SCHOLAR IN BABYLONIAN AGGADA 173

as R. Gamaliel comes to understand the "troubles" of Torah scholars and as the bet midrash is transformed from a place of conflict into a place of compromise in which R. Gamaliel is able to share his leadership. In addition, chiastic structure highlights the center of the narrative, which achieves extra prominence by serving as the pivot on which the plot turns. Here, the central passage is section [HI, R. Gamaliel's concern about having prevented prospective students from learning Torah. This is flanked by sections [GI and [G'], R. Gamaliel's overturned attempts to exclude students from the bet midrash and a proselyte from the congregation. Sections [GI, [HI, and [G'] encapsulate the theme of this narrative, the concern for Torah study, which is epitomized by R. Gamaliel's misguided requirement for a student of Torah, that his inside be like his outside, tokho khevaro .I7 The motif of tokho khevaro, inside and outside, recurs throughout the narrative; it contrasts the interior and exterior of a person or object, that is, the apparent versus the true nature of someone or something. In addition, the contrast between inside and outside appears in this narrative as the contrast between being inside or outside a place or group, that is, the contrast between inclusion and exclusion. These two senses of inside and outside are related within the narrative: as R. Gamaliel stipulates, the nature of a person must be determined before it can be decided whether he should be admitted into a certain group. As we shall see, occurrences within the Babylonian narrative of the motif of inside and outside, in both senses, constitute a large number of the narrative elements which do not appear in the Palestinian version. An analysis of these occurrences will reveal, to a great extent, the theme of the Babylonian narrative. The most obvious occurrence of this motif, standing at the center of the narrative, is R. Gamaliel's dream of white casks filled with ashes, a response to the patriarch's concern that his policy has caused worthy students to be excluded from the bet midrash. This dream, which, like R. Gamaliel's proclamation, does not appear in the PT, suggests that R. Gamaliel's motivation in establishing his policy has some validity, even if the implementing of such a policy was wrong, as, we are told, the dream is false. The BT offers an explanation of R. Gamaliel's concern with which one

17. For a comparison of this requirement and of other elements of the narrative with aspects of the philosophical schools of Athens, see Cohen, "Patriarchs and Scholars," pp. 7S79. Cohen's article, pp. 57-85, analyzes the Ketubot passage cited above as well as segments of the Berakhot narrative. 174 DEVORA STEMMETZ

can sympathizeR. Gamaliel has been worried about maintaining a standard in the bet midrash and, subsequently, he fears that his proclamation has had the undesired effect of preventing Torah study.l8 Nevertheless, the narrative suggests that R. Gamaliel's rule is wrong, not only by the comment that his dream is false, but by the inclusion of two other occurrences of the motif of tokho khevaro. R. Gamaliel fears that a student may show himself externally to be better than he really is, and his false dream confirms this suspicion; the internally black casks are white on the outside. But the narrative offers two examples, in [F] and [F'], of scholars whose external appearance is poor, yet who are truly worthy; in fact, in one case, it is R. Gamaliel himself who is fooled by appearances. The first of the scholars is R. Elazar b. Azaria, the graying of whose hair is mentioned as an unmotivated fact in the PT. In the BT, however, R. Elazar b. Azaria's hair turns gray as a response to the objection of his wife, who warns that he will be unacceptable as a leader because of his youth. R. Elazar b. Azaria, we are told in [El, is well qualified to lead, but his dark hair might indicate, wrongly, that he is unfit. The second of these scholars is R. Joshua, the blackened walls of whose house cause R. Gamaliel to exclaim: "You are a blacksmith!" R. Joshua takes R. Gamaliel to task for his insensitivity to the troubles of scholars. His comment, additionally, can be read as an implicit criticism of the patriarch's concern with externals, for the patriarch may see R. Joshua as a smith, but R. Joshua is, nevertheless, a scholar as well. The parallel passage in PT shows only the patriarch's unfamiliarity with R. Joshua's way of life, not his misfocus on external appearances. There, R. Gamaliel sees, not black walls, but R. Joshua's occupation with insignificant objects, needles. While R. Gamaliel's exclamation, in both the PT and the BT, shows him to be unaware of the needs of scholars, only in the BT does it constitute a definition of R. Joshua based on external appearances. Throughout the Babylonian narrative externals are indeed deceptive, but contrary to R. Gamaliel's fear, they actually show the person to be less worthy than he really is. This inversion of R. Gamaliel's concern that internals may not match externals underscores the wrongness of the patriarch's policy of admission to the bet midrash. While R. Gamaliel fears that a man who appears to be worthy may, in reality, be unworthy, both R. Elazar b. Azaria

18. Goldenberg, "Deposition of Rabban Gamaliel 11," p. 183, suggests that this "episode replaces the earlier hostility towards R. Gamaliel with patronizing condescension . . . he meant well." THE NASI AS SCHOLAR IN BABYLONIAN AGGADA 175 and R. Joshua serve as examples of men who are indeed worthy, though appearances might indicate otherwise. R. Gamaliel, the story emphasizes, has wrongfully "withheld Torah from Israel." The new bet midrash, reconstituted in his absence, rejects the notion that a man be judged by how he looks on the outside. The launderer, who in the PT appears simply as a typical worker,19is converted in the BT into a figure who speaks in an idiom of the garments with which he works; R. Elazar b. Azaria should step down, he suggests, because R. Gamaliel, not he, wears the garments of leadership. R. Aqiva assumes that the launderer, who looks at the garments rather than at the person, is a servant of R. Gamaliel, and, like his master, comes to "trouble" the rabbis. Locking the doors which had been thrown open under the new leadership, R. Aqiva excludes from the bet midrash those who speak the idiom of R. Gamaliel. The new leadership has rejected R. Gamaliel's standards of judgment and, in so doing, has opened the bet midrash to whoever might wish to enter.20 This first, more literal sense of inside and outside, then, points to a second, and thematically more crucial, sense of the motif-inside and outside the bet midrash or, more generally, the community of Torah. The first action of the new leadership, absent in the PT version of this story, is to remove the guard from the bet midrash and allow the students to enter. The numbering of the benches is presented by the BT as the result of this opening of the doors.21R. Gamaliel worries, as students fill the bet midrash, that he has "withheld Torah from Israel." As the narrative progresses, his words take on a double meaning. Clearly he has withheld Torah study from the many people whom he had kept out of the bet midrash, but he has also, according to the continuation of the narrative, prevented the increase of Torah itself, for the inclusion of these new students leads to the resolution of many old questions of law.

19. Compare, for example, the washerman who appears at the time of Rabbi's death in pKetubot 12:3, 35a and bKetubot 103b and the washermen in bNedraim 41a and bBava Batra 8a. 20. Ironically, though, the doors are locked by R. Aqiva in the face of R. Gamaliel's "servants," again raising the issue of insideloutside and of the exclusiveness and boundaries of communities. See below, n. 28 concerning R. Aqiva's role in this and related talmudic stories. Interestingly, it is R. Aqiva, not the new leaders of the bet midrash, who declares that the doors are now to be shut. 21. See Goldenberg, "Deposition of Rabban Gamaliel 11," p. 182. Ginzberg, Perushim ve-Chidushim, pp. 187-189, suggests that the numbers in the PT are an elaboration of the words "all the people" in the baraita. 176 DEVORA STEINMETZ

So terrible is it for someone to be excluded from the group of Torah students, according to the BT, that even the deposed patriarch cannot "withhold himself' from the bet midrash. Clearly, according to the logic of this narrative, R. Gamaliel ought to be outside the bet midrash; later, as we have seen, even his suspected servant is not allowed to enter through the gate. Indeed, in the PT, R. Gamaliel does not appear in the bet hava 'ad until he is reaccepted by the rabbis. The BT, though, underscores R. Gamaliel's regard for Torah as the beginning of the narrative's resolution. If R. Gamaliel is ever to be restored as patriarch, he must first demonstrate his concern for Torah. In fact, it is R. Gamaliel's concern for Torah that motivates the deposed patriarch to apologize and, ultimately, what allows him to be reinstated. It is after R. Gamaliel sees the result of open debate about Torah, the settling of difficult questions of law, that the BT records his decision to visit his opponent: "Since it is thus, I will go and appease R. J~shua."~~While the PT presents R. Gamaliel's decision to apologize to the rabbis as an immediate response to his having been stripped of authority, the BT's placement of R. Gamaliel's decision suggests that it is a response to his recognition that the policies of the new leadership lead to the growth of Torah. In the BT, segment [G'], which finds the deposed patriarch engaging in debate in the bet midrash, leads up to R. Gamaliel's apology. This segment begins the second half of the narrative and, at first, seems to be parallel to segment [A]; once more, there is an argument between R. Gamaliel and R. Joshua, and the conflict appears to be starting all over again. But, as the passage continues, segment [G'] is transformed into the beginning of the narrative's resolution; R. Gamaliel enters willingly into a hostile bet midrash to debate about Torah, R. Joshua defeats him in the course of an extended debate, and R. Gamaliel, this time accepting that unrestrained argument leads to the increase of Torah, goes to make peace with his opponent. The BT's choice, in segment [G'], of the mishna about the Ammonite proselyte seems strikingly deliberate. While the PT offers a different, the- matically irrelevant, tannaitic source to substantiate the notion that R. Elazar

22. Of course, "Since it is thus" may be, as in the PT, simply a statement of R. Gamaliel's resignation to the taking of power by the rabbis who have deposed him and appointed R. Elazar b. Azaria. Goldenberg, "Deposition of Rabban Garnaliel 11," p. 174, n. 49, reads it this way, but he takes the mishna from Yadaim to be an interpolation. Note that I am analyzing the narrative in the final form which it takes in the BT, in comparison with its form in the PT. THE NASI AS SCHOLAR IN BABYLONIAN AGGADA 177 b. Azaria lectured before the students at Yavneh (rnKetubot 4:6), the BT seems to go out of its way to quote a mishna which is inconsistent with the logic of the deposition narrative. The mishna in Tractate Yadaim (4:4) concerning Judah the Ammonite proselyte is, in fact, the only one in a series of four mishnayot beginning with the words "On that day" (4:1-4) in which R. Gamaliel's opinion is cited; at first glance, it would seem to the very worst choice as a supporting text! As we have noted, the Babylonian narrative is emphasizing R. Gamaliel's desire to be involved in Torah study, which compels the deposed patriarch to enter the bet midra~h,~~and it also sets up the debate between R. Gamaliel and R. Joshua as parallel to the debate with which the narrative opens. But the deliberate choice of this mishna makes another point as well, through the mishna's thematic link with the Babylonian narrative and, specifically, through its symmetry with segment [GI. The mishna discusses the case of a person who wishes to enter the congregation of Israel but whose inclusion is halakhically problematic. R. Gamaliel, in keeping with his policy of exclusiveness reflected in segment [GI, rules that the proselyte may not enter, while R. Joshua, whose supporters have taken over and opened up the bet midrash, rules that Judah may enter the congregation. The parallel segments of [GI and [G'], then, together with R. Gamaliel's wony and his false dream in segment [HI, establish the motif of inside and outside, in both senses, as encapsulating the central concern of the Babylonian narrative-Torah. This concern and, once again, this motif may be alluded to for a final time at the end of the passage. While the Palestinian version concludes with the compromise in the leadership of the bet hava 'ad, the BT appends a supporting text. And, like the mishna which substantiates R. Elazar b. Azaria's initial appointment, this passage may be thematically related to our narrative. Quite possibly, the passage is referring to the derasha introduced by the words "Whose Sabbath was it? It was R. Elazar b. Azaria's" which is quoted in the Tosefta as well as in the BT (Hagiga 3a) and parallels:24

. . ."And what did he teach?" " 'Gather the people: the men and the women and the children' (Deut 31:12). If the men come to learn, women come to

23. Goldenberg, "Deposition of Rabban Gamaliel 11," p. 176, notes this anomaly and draws a similar conclusion. 24. For a brief discussion of the passage and its parallels, see Joseph Heinemann, "The Proem in the Aggadic Midrashim," Scripta Hierosolymitana 22 (1971): 114-1 16. 178 DEVORA STEINMETZ

hear-why do children come? To bring reward to those who bring them." And he taught further: ". . . 'ba'alei 'asuphot' (Eccles 12:lltThese are scholars who sit gathered together and say on an impure thing 'impure,' and on a pure thing 'pure.' A man should not say to himself: 'Since these prohibit and these permit, why do I study?' . . . Make your heart like inner rooms and put in it the words of those who render impure and the words of those who render pure. . . ." (tSotah 79-12)

This derasha both begins and ends with the idea of the inclusiveness of Torah. R. Elazar b. Azaria understands haqhel, the periodic reading of the Torah to the congregation which is recommitting itself to the covenant of Sinai (Deut 3 1:10-1 3), to include all of Israel, not only those who are capable of study, but even those who are just barely capable of attending. And, as he affirms the openness of the community of Israel (as in [G']), R. Elazar b. Azaria affirms the openness of the scholarly community (as in [GI); when scholars gather together and debate freely, Torah is increased, despite the disagreements. By the end of the Babylonian narrative, the bet midrash in which only R. Gamaliel was able to speak is converted into a community of Torah open to whoever may wish to enter and inviting to whoever would join the discourse of Torah interpretation. While the Babylonian narrative about the deposition of R. Gamaliel is concerned primarily with Torak-how it is studied, interpreted, and debated within the bet midrash-the Palestinian version seems to be a much sim- pler story about a political leader who has overstepped his bounds. In the Palestinian story, as we have noted in passing, the issue of Torah, of who is fit to study and of how learning can increase, never emerges. Although the narrative begins with a legal dispute between R. Gamaliel and R. Joshua, that dispute is not the reason for the patriarch's deposition. In the BT, the people recognize a pattern of R. Gamaliel in conflict with R. Joshua over legal questions, but here they accuse the patriarch of mistreating everyone, and, indeed, R. Gamaliel later goes to apologize to all of the rabbis.2s The picture in the PT is of the patriarch versus the rabbis in general, and the hostility is unmitigated by any concern on the part of the patriarch, whether justified or not, for the standard of Torah study. R. Gamaliel, in this narrative,

25. Goldenberg, "Deposition of Rabban Gamaliel 11," pp. 175 and 186, notes the more "political" nature of the conflict in the PT. THE NASI AS SCHOLAR IN BABYLONIAN AGGADA 179 simply cannot accept challenges to his authority, and he is moved to make peace with the rabbis as soon as he finds that the power is in their hands. That the Palestinian story is about political power rather than about the political leader's role as a scholar and fosterer of Torah becomes even more apparent in the complex of details surrounding the appointment and demotion of R. Gamaliel's replacement, R. Elazar b. Azaria. The Palestinian narrative does not articulate the motivation for choosing R. Elazar b. Azaria, but R. Aqiva, contrasting himself with the young appointee, explains why he was chosen: R. Elazar b. Azaria is "a descendant of great people"-in the words of the Talmud, "the tenth generation from Ezra." According to R. Aqiva, R. Elazar b. Azaria was chosen because of his lineage. R. Elazar b. Azaria's lineage is mentioned in the BT as well, but there it is one of a group of three reasons for the choice, and, more importantly, the three reasons are less qualifications than practical considerations. The other candidates considered in the BT might present problems, but R. Elazar b. Azaria possesses characteristics that will come in handy during his leadership: he can answer questions, he can carry out diplomatic duties, he cannot be punished. Lineage, in the BT, will protect R. Elazar b. Azaria in his new position; in the PT, it makes him fitting for the position. R. Elazar b. Azaria's specific lineage justifies his appointment to a position of authority in the bet hava 'ad, probably because it links the young rabbi to the prie~thood.~~While the patriarchate claimed Davidic ancestry, the priests had constituted the aristocratic class for centuries, and Ezra the Priest, the leader of Israel when, for the first time since David, the people had no king, represents the ascendancy of the prie~thood.~~The priestly claim to power, it seems, is what the messenger to R. Elazar b. Azaria addresses. In the PT only one message is sent to R. Elazar b. Azaria, the metaphor of the sprinkler son of a sprinkler.2sThe metaphor describes one of the powers of the priesthood

26. Reuven Kimelman discusses the enduring power ofthe priestly class after the destruction of the Second Temple in "The Conflict Between the Priestly Oligarchy and the Sages in the Talmudic Period" [Hebrew], Zion 48 (1983): 135-148. 27. Gedalyahu Alon, Toldot ha-Yehudim be-'Eretz Esra'el bi-Tqufat ha-Mishna veha- Talmud (Tel Aviv, 1971) p. 200, and Goldenberg, "Deposition of Rabban Gamaliel 11," p. 182. 28. In the PT, R. Aqiva is mentioned as a possible messenger to remove R. Elazar b. Azaria from his office, while, in the BT, R. Aqiva attempts to protect the new leadership from the messenger. R. Aqiva's role in the PT fits in with his negative reaction to R. Elazar b. Azaria's appointment and his recognition that the young scholar has been appointed for dynastic reasons. The involvement of R. Aqiva in these and related narrative justifies further study. See, for 180 DEVORA STEINMETZ and states that only he who is a born priest can claim that power. In effect, the messenger is saying that R. Elazar b. Azaria has his realm of power and R. Gamaliel has his, and neither has the right to usurp the other's position. The metaphor asks R. Elazar b. Azaria to step down from R. Gamaliel's position in words which affirm the dynastic claim to authority: R. Elazar b. Azaria's claim will have to be dealt with, but R. Gamaliel is declared the rightful heir to the patriarchate. The BT includes the metaphor of the sprinkler son of a sprinkler but, significantly, cites two different, but structurally similar, metaphoric messages, in [D'IC'], and includes an additional structurally similar rhetorical question in the first half of the narrative, in [C]. While the BT, no doubt, recognizes the strength of the dynastic claim to leadership, that claim is not sufficient in the absence of other criteria, as indicated by the BT's analysis of Rabbi's dying testament, cited above. In our narrative, the metaphor of the sprinkler is diluted somewhat by its inclusion as one of three structurally similar rhetorical questions, much as the qualification of lineage is subtly minimized as one of three qualifications which R. Elazar b. Azaria possesses. The original rhetorical question has become a model for the others: the metaphor of "he who wears the garment" serving as an illustration of judging by externals, rejected by the new bet midrash, and the contrast between the living and the dead, added, perhaps, for the purpose of narrative symmetry.29As one reads the Babylonian narrative, the question about the sprinkler stands out no more than either of the other two, and the dynastic claim to authority, while recognized, is submerged beneath the primary concern of the narrative.30 The BT's emphasis on the patriarch as scholar appears, too, in the concluding compromise in the narrative. The BT emphasizes the problem example, R. Aqiva's role in the story about R. Joshua and R. Gamaliel in rnRosh Hashana 2:%9 and his role in the story of Achnai's stove (bBava Metzia 59b), involving a conflict between R. Aqiva's two teachers, R. Eliezer and R. Joshua, and between R. Eliezer and the patriarch. It is noteworthy that, in the latter story, R. Gamaliel's death after a scholar is excluded from the community when he dissents from the rabbinic consensus comes about, according to one of the story's endings, from a confusion about when rosh chodesh falls, the very issue at stake in R. Gamaliel's disagreement with R. Joshua in mRosh Hashana. 29. The rhetorical question about the living and the dead appears as well in one of the accounts of conflict between R. Joshua and R. Gamaliel mentioned in the Babylonian narrative; see bBekhorot 36a. 30. It is interesting that R. Aqiva does not respond to the content of R. Joshua's message; he responds, simply, to the fact that R. Joshua has been appeased. THE NASI AS SCHOLAR IN BABYLONIAN AGGADA 181

which R. Elazar b. Azaria's wife anticipated and which parallels the deposing of R. Gamaliel at the beginning of the narrative. But, while early in the narrative conflict was rampant and deposition was an option, now the bet midrash seeks a peaceful resolution which will avoid deposition: "let R. Gamaliel teach three Sabbaths and R. Elazar b. Azaria one Sabbath." The resolution divides the patriarch's role unevenly between R. Gamaliel and R. Elazar b. Azaria and succinctly defines what the most important element of that role is for the Babylonian narrative---teaching Torah. In the PT, too, R. Elazar b. Azaria is not simply removed from his position, but here he is appointed 'av bet din, second in authority to the patriarch. The Palestinian version concludes with a formal division of administrative power, while the Babylonian version concludes with a division of teaching duties. Equally significant, the conclusion of the Babylonian narrative ensures that multiple voices will be heard in this bet midrash; the division of teaching duties institutionalizes the values of the new leadership, assuring that never again will R. Gamaliel's voice silence other scholars from voicing their halakhic positions or their Torah interpretations. There is, perhaps, one more element of the Babylonian passage which supports the notion that, for the BT, challenge to the patriarch is based on the assumption that the patriarch must be a scholar concerned with Torah. While the PT never identifies the student who instigates the conflict between R. Gamaliel and R. Joshua, the Babylonian version tells us that the student was R. Shimeon b. Yohai. This mysterious allusion, left unexplained and unmotivated in the narrative, may be related to a perception of the relationship between R. Shimeon b. Yohai and the patriarchal family. This perception is reflected in a story about R. Shimeon b. Yohai's son, R. Elazar, and R. Gamaliel's grandson, the son of R. Shimeon b. Gamaliel, Rabbi.

Rabbi sent to speak to his [R. Elazar's] wife [to propose marriage, after R. Elazar's death]. She sent to him: "Shall a vessel which has been used for holy things be used for profane things?" . . . He sent to her: "Granted that he was greater than me in Torah, but was he greater than me in good deeds?" She sent to him: "I did not know that he was greater than you in Torah, but I did know that in deeds he was. . . ." "In Torah"-to what does this refer? When R. Shimeon b. Gamaliel and R. Joshua b. Qarcha used to sit on benches, R. Elazar b. R. Shimeon and Rabbi sat before them on the ground, asking and answering. They said: "We drink their waters, but they sit on the ground?!" They made benches for them. R. 182 DEVORA STEINMETZ

Shimeon b. Gamaliel said to them: "I have one pigeon among you, and you want to destroy it for me?" They brought Rabbi down. R. Joshua b. Qarcha said to them: "Shall he who has a father live, and he who does not have a father die?" They brought down R. Elazar b. R. Shimeon also. His mind was weakened. He said: "You think me equal to him?!" Until that day, when Rabbi said something, R. Elazar b. R. Shimeon supported him; from then on, when Rabbi said: "I have an objection," R. Elazar b. R. Shimeon said to him: "You have such-and-such objection; this is your answer. Now you have surrounded us with bundles of answers which have no substance." Rabbi's mind was weakened. He went and told his father. He said to him: "My son, let it not grieve you, for he is a lion son of a lion, and you are a lion son of a fox." (bBava Metzia 84b)

Rabbi, the future patriarch, is challenged by R. Elazar b. R. Shimeon on the basis of the latter's greater knowledge. And Rabbi's father, R. Shimeon b. Gamaliel, assures his son that R. Elazar's father, R. Shimeon b. Yohai, was greater than him: R. Shimeon b. Yohai was a "lion," and R. Shimeon b. Gamaliel merely a "fox." This story is brought to explain the contrast in Torah between Rabbi and R. Elazar, mentioned in the preceding story, and in this context, the contrast between R. Shimeon b. Yohai and R. Shimeon b. Gamaliel, the "lion" and the "fox," seems to be a matter of scholarship as well.31There appears to be a tradition, then, of scholarly competition between the family of the patriarch and the family of R. Shimeon b. Yohai, and the Babylonian version of R. Gamaliel's deposition may be making reference to this tradition. The young R. Shimeon b. Yohai, perhaps perceiving himself to be a greater scholar than the future patriarch, asks the question that will bring about an overthrow in the leadership of the bet midrash. Knowledge of Torah, once more, is what poses the challenge, in the BT, to the authority of the patriarch.32

3 1. In the Palestinian parallels, pShabbat 10:5, 12c and Pesiqta de-Rav Kahane, ed. Buber, p. 94b, while R. Elazar is portrayed as a greater scholar than Rabbi, the contrast between the two scholars, and between their fathers, seems to be based on deeds as well, to a degree greater than in the BT. In Pesiqta de-Rav Kahane, especially, the metaphor of the vessel is explained by R. Elazar's deeds alone; in the PT the metaphor is not explained at all. Once again, it is the BT which emphasizes the challenge based on scholarship. 32. Baumgarten, in "Akiban Opposition," discusses the intercalation story in pHagiga 3: 1, 78d and hypothesizes an anti-patriarchal party of which R. Shimeon b. Yohai was an important member. THE NASI AS SCHOLAR IN BABYLONIAN AGGADA 183

No other passage describes in as great detail as the Berakhot narrative a challenge to the patriarch that takes place in the bet midrash or bet hava 'ad, but I would like to discuss a few briefer passages which, I think, support the idea that the BT overlays stories of political quarrels with a concern for Torah scholarship. The first of these is the well-known story of the attempted overthrow of R. Gamaliel's son, R. Shimeon, by R. Nathan and R. Meir.

Our rabbis taught: When the nasi enters, all the people stand and do not sit until he tells them: "Sit." When the 'av bet din enters, they make one row for him on this side and one row for him on that side until he sits in his place. When the hakham enters, one stands and one sits until he sits in his place. . . . R. Yochanan said: This mishna was taught in the days of R. Shimeon b. Gamaliel. R. Shimeon b. Gamaliel was the nasi, R. Meir was the hakham, R. Nathan was the 'av bet din. When R. Shimeon b. Gamaliel was there, everyone would stand up before him. When R. Meir and R. Nathan would go up, everyone would stand up before them. R. Shimeon b. Gamaliel said: "Is it not necessary to make a distinction between mine and theirs?He fixed this mishna. That day R. Meir and R. Nathan were not there. On the next day, when they came, they saw that they did not stand up before them as usual. They said: "What is this?" They said to them: "So R. Shimeon b. Gamaliel decreed." R. Meir said to R. Nathan: "I am the hakham and you are the 'av bet din; let us fix a matter for ourselves. What shall we do to him? We shall say to him: 'Reveal 'Uqtzin'--which he does not know, and since he has not learned it, we shall say to him: ' "Who shall express the mighty deeds of the Lord, shall make all his praise heard?" (Psalms 106:2)-To whom is it becoming to express the mighty deeds of the Lord? To him who is able to make all his praises heard!' We shall remove him, and I shall be 'av bet din and you shall be nasi." R. Jacob b. Qarshi heard them. He said: "Perhaps, God forbid, the matter will lead to humiliation." He went and sat behind the loft of R. Shimeon b. Gamaliel. He explained and learned and repeated, and learned and repeated. He [R. Shimeon b. Gamaliel] said: "What is this before me? Perhaps, God forbid, there is something in the bet midrash." He paid attention and learned it. On the next day, they said to him: "Come, Master, and teach 'Uqtzin." He opened and spoke. After he finished it, he said to them: "Had I not learned, you would have humiliated us." He ordered and they threw them out of the bet midrash. They wrote questions on notes and threw them there. That which 184 DEVORA STEINMETZ

was solved was solved; those which were not solved-they wrote answers and threw them. R. Yosi said to them: "Torah is outside and we are within!" R. Shimeon b. Gamaliel said to them: "We shall bring them up, but we shall penalize them in that we shall not say a tradition in their names." They referred to R. Meir as "others" and to R. Nathan as "some say." They were shown in their dreams: "Go appease R. Shimeon b. Gamaliel." R. Nathan went; R. Meir did not go. He said: "Words of dreams neither raise up nor bring down." When R. Nathan went, R. Shimeon b. Gamaliel said to him: "Granted that the girdle of your father benefited you to become 'av bet dinshall I appoint you also nasi?" (bHorayot 13b)

R. Meir was learning. He went to the bet hava 'ad, and all the people saw him and stood before him. When they heard that mishna taught, they wanted to act like that toward him. He became angry and left. He said to them: "I have heard that one increases in sanctity but does not decrease." (pBikurim 3:3, 65c)

The Babylonian version is, once again, a longer and more developed version of a tradition cited in the PT.j3 The basic element, included in both narratives, is the linking of R. Meir's anger toward the bet midrash/bet hava 'ad or its leadership with the mishna concerning decorum toward the nasi, 'av bet din, and hakham. Aside from this, the two stories are completely different.j4 The Palestinian version does not really describe a conflict at all, and the patriarch does not even appear in the story; R. Meir is simply angered because the people no longer treat him with the respect with which they used to. In the BT, this incident is transformed into a story of conflict with the

33. Goodblatt, " 'Al Sippur ha-'Qesher'," pp. 349-374, discusses these two passages and suggests that the version in bHorayot is a Babylonian creation not to be treated as evidence of a historical event. See Adolph Buchler, "The Conspiracy of R. Nathan and R. Meir Against the Patriarch R. Shimeon b. Gamaliel," in Studies in Jewish History, ed. I. Brodie and J. Rabinowitz (Oxford, 1956), pp. 16C-177, for a discussion of this story and its relationship to some other challenges to the patriarch. 34. It is fascinating that the statement about increasing in holiness but not decreasing appears or is echoed in both versions of this story as well as in two of the other stories at which we have looked. The statement appears in pBikurim and is echoed in R. Meir's refusal to heed the message of the dream in bHorayot. The statement appears as well in the conclusion of the deposition narrative in bBerakhot and in the conclusion of the story about Rabbi and R. Elazar b. R. Shimeon's wife in Pesiqta de-Rav Kahane. THE NASI AS SCHOLAR IN BABYLONIAN AGGADA 185 patriarch, conflict so severe that it leads to an attempt to depose him. The conflict is initiated by the patriarch himself, who feels his authority threatened by the equal respect shown to him and his subordinates. But, while the issue in the BT is R. Shimeon b. Gamaliel's concern for his own authority and R. Meir's concern for his honor, what is crucial for our purposes is the manner in which the patriarch's position can be challenged.35 R. Meir states that the patriarch must be a scholar; if his knowledge of Torah is lacking in any way, he must be stripped of his position. R. Jacob b. Qarshi and R. Shimeon b. Gamaliel himself work to ensure that such public humiliation not take place, and, while it is not clear that they fear deposition as a possible outcome, it is clear that they concur with the expectation that the patriarch must be a great scholar. R. Shimeon b. Gamaliel's son, Rabbi, is shown in the BT to be similarly tested, although not necessarily as a challenge to his position.36

R. Hiyya said to Rav: "Son of noblemen, have I not told you that when Rabbi is in one tractate you should not ask him about a different tractate, for perhaps it is not in his mind? For if Rabbi were not a great man, you would embarrass him, for he would give you an answer that is not an answer. Now, though, he has answered you well." (bshabbat 3b)

While here the patriarch is ready with a response, R. Hiyya takes his nephew to task for asking a question that could have humiliated Rabbi if he

35. Neusner, Histoly ofthe Jews in Babylonia, vol. 1 (1965), pp. 73-80, sees this story as revealing a political conflict between the Babylonian R. Nathan and the pro-Roman patriarch. I am concerned rather with what the story itself presents as the problem in the bet midrash--in Robert Goldenberg's words, "the reality . . . of the teller, not the subject of the tale." Goldenberg sees the story about R. Shimeon b. Gamaliel as reflecting a concem for Torah as opposed to hereditary authority, since the patriarch himself belittles R. Nathan's hereditary claim, while he sees the story about R. Gamaliel, in both the PT and BT, as validating the hereditary claim to a position of authority. See "History and Ideology in Talmudic Narrative," in Approaches to Ancient , ed. William Scott Green, vol. 4 (1983), pp. 15S171. It seems to me that both Babylonian stories accept the hereditary claim--after all, R. Shimeon b. Gamaliel does stay in office despite his lack of knowledge, and R. Gamaliel appeals to the honor of his father in order to regain his office-but that both overlay this with a concem for the patriarch as scholar and head of the academy. 36. Compare, however, the more explicit stories of challenges to Rabbi's authority by R. Hiyya or his sons: for example, pKil'ayim 9:4, 32c = pKetubot 12:3, 35a and bsanhedrin 38a. See Buchler, "Conspiracy of R. Nathan and R. Meir," pp. 176177. 186 DEVORA STEINMETZ had not known the answer. Apparently, although the patriarch cannot in fact be expected to be familiar with material which he is not presently studying, he is in principle supposed to be a master of scholarship. As in the Horayot narrative, the patriarch can be severely embarrassed if he does not fill his role as Torah scholar. Another story reminiscent of certain elements of the Horayot narrative tells of a conflict between Resh Laqish and the patriarch R. Judah 11.

And Resh Laqish said: "A patriarch who trespassed is given stripes by a court of three." Does one retum him? R. Hagai said: "Moses! One does not retum him, for he will kill us." R. Judah the patriarch heard and became angry. He sent troops to catch up with Resh Laqish and to seize him. He fled to a distant town. . . . On the next day, R. Yochanan went to the bet hava'ad. He [R. Judah] said to him: "Why doesn't the Master tell us a word of Torah?" He [R. Yochanan] began to clap with one hand. He said to him: "And does one clap with one hand?" He said to him: "No. If not Resh Laqish, no [i.e., I cannot teach without Resh Laqish]. . . ." He said to him: "Tomorrow, I and you shall go out to meet him." R. Yochanan sent to Resh Laqish: "Prepare for yourself a word of Torah, for the patriarch is going out to meet you." . . . He [R. Judah] said to him [Resh Laqish]: "And what did you see that you said this thing [about the trespassing patriarch]?" He said to them: "Do you think that I would be afraid of you and would withhold God's Torah?" (pSanhedrin 2:1, 19d = pHorayot 3:2, 47a)

This PT narrative certainly reveals a concern for Torah, and the conflict is resolved for much the same reason as in the story about R. Shimeon b. Gamaliel: it is unacceptable that Torah be exiled from the academy. But here the patriarch is not expected to be a Torah scholar himself. The threat which R. Judah perceives to be posed by the discussion in the bet hava 'ad is not a challenge to the patriarch's scholarship but a challenge to his authority. A patriarch can be punished by a lower court, says Resh Laqish and, R. Hagai continues, since the patriarch might then take upon himself too much power, he must be removed from office lest he present a danger to the rabbis. The passage concludes with the statement by Resh Laqish of a similar point: the patriarch's authority must not be used to stifle Torah study. This story, then, pits Torah against power. It is the rabbis' role to teach Torah and decide questions of law, but the patriarch is not expected to be THE NASI AS SCHOLAR IN BABYLONIAN AGGADA 187 a scholar. In fact, he is not even expected to be concerned primarily with Torah, and the rabbis can only hope that the patriarch will keep out of their way when they expound Torah. These brief narratives of conflict in the bet midrash or bet hava 'ad support the notion, suggested on the basis of the Berakhot narrative, that the BT sees the patriarch as someone who must embody and support Torah scholarship, while the PT does not. How this distinction came about can only be conjectured, but I would like briefly to discuss two possible approaches. Clearly, the authors of the BT were further from the historical reality of the patriarchate and the society within which it functioned than the authors of the PT. It is likely that, while the Palestinian portrait reflects a patriarchate closer to historical reality, the authors of the BT saw the Palestinian institution of the patriarchate through the lens of their own, quite different institutions. The patriarchate included two different functions: political and academic. The patriarch was the ethnarch answerable to the Roman authorities, yet he also participated in legal and academic debate. The Babylonian Jewish community, in contrast, had separate political and academic leaders; the was not expected to be a scholar or to participate in academic affairs. The PT reflects an understanding of the dual nature of the patriarchate and, it seems, recognizes the political function as primary. The patriarch, it is true, could be found in the bet hava 'ad, but he could not as a rule be expected to involve himself fully in scholarship; he was first and foremost a dynastic leader with political duties. But in Babylonia it was the exilarch who filled the political function. While some scholars, such as Rav, may have been politically involved, and a rare exilarch, such as Mar Uqva, may have been a scholar, the two figures occupied distinct roles. The Palestinian leadership, then, could not easily be conceived of in terms of Babylonian institutions. If the patriarch of Palestinian history and legend often was to be found in the bet hava 'ad, participating in or presiding over academic debate-or even, in the case of Rabbi, codifying the Mishna-the patriarchate could not be seen as parallel to the Babylonian office of exilarch; rather, the patriarch would have been seen as similar to the Babylonian academic leader, the resh metivta. As a Palestinian version of the Babylonian academic, the patriarch would, of necessity, become a master of scholarship. It is just such a figure that we find throughout the BT-a scholar concerned about the increase of Torah, a leader who should be chosen for his scholarship and who can be threatened with deposition if his scholarship, or his fostering 188 DEVORA STEINMETZ

of scholarship, is found wanting. In the words of the BT, while the Babylonian political leader "beats Israel with a staff," the Palestinian patriarch "teach[es] Torah to Israel in public" (bsanhedrin 5b, bHorayot 1lb).)' Another and, perhaps, complementary possible explanation would account for the divergence not so much as the result of viewing a Palestinian institution through the lens of the Babylonian world, but rather as an ideological recasting of the patriarchate on the part of the BT. Since the patriarch was not a Babylonian figure, memories of the individual patriarchs, of their relationships with the rabbis, and of the patriarchate as an institution could more freely be idealized and mythologized in the BT. Besides the heavier editorial hands which characterize the BT and transform both legal discussions and narratives into rich literary texts, the BT, standing at a remove from Palestinian institutions, could transform traditional Palestinian stories into narratives conveying social and religious values. The primary value highlighted above is that of Torah scholarship. By making the leader of the Jewish people in the land of Israel into a paradigm of Torah scholarship, the BT underscores the centrality of this value. In reality, it is absurd to imagine that a dynastic political leader, a man of great wealth and power with connections to Rome, could be deposed based on ignorance of obscure points of law. Yet the BT chooses to put Torah side-by-side with political power, as in the list of the qualifications of R. Elazar b. Azaria; a patriarch may be chosen because of his lineage, he may need to pay tribute to Rome, but he can lose his position if he is not a comprehensive expert in matters of Torah scholarship! Other values, too, are given prominence in some of the Babylonian narratives discussed above. For example, the Berakhot narrative argues forcefully for the power of free debate. The patriarch, here, is not taken to task for ignorance; he is taken to task for behavior which limits the growth and free expression of ideas. The first glimpse which we are given of the bet midrash shows R. Joshua lying about his point of view concerning a question of halakha. R. Gamaliel has not only closed the doors in the face of potential students, he has closed the doors in the face of honest debate. The

37. See Isaiah Gafni, " 'Shevet u-Mechoqeq'-'Al Dehsei Manhigut Chadashim bi-Tkufat ha-Talmud," in Kehuna u-Mlukha: Yachasei Dat u- be-Yisra'el uv- 'amim, ed. Isaiah Gafni and Gavriel Motzkin (Jerusalem: Merkaz Zalman Shazar, 1987), pp. 79-91. Gafni points out the BT's discomfort with the notion of succession in the realm of Torah leadership and the relationship of this stance to the reality of Babylonian institutions: while the exilarchate was dynastic, the position of resh metivta was not. THE NASI AS SCHOLAR IN BABYLONIAN AGGADA 189

BT, which so clearly values both the process and the products of unfettered debate, disposes of the patriarch who rejects this value. R. Gamaliel can return only when he recognizes the value of debate, and he returns on the bet midrash's new terms; not only are potential students allowed access to Torah, not only does debate continue freely until resolution is reached, but the very arrangement at the narrative's conclusiow-the division of teaching responsibilities between R. Gamaliel and R. Elazar b. Azaria--guarantees that never again will a single voice dominate the bet midrash. It is not only the centrality of Torah scholarship, then, but also the mode of Torah learning and the way Torah study shapes community and relationships among community members that is so powerfully commented on by the Berakhot narrative. This kind of narrative can be crafted only with distance from the people and events that lie behind it. The BT, in time, place, and culture, stands removed from the institutions, people, and events of the bet hava 'ad. Historical, geographical, and cultural distance, along with great artistry, give the BT the power to transform those institutions, people, and events into ideas, figures, and narratives that speak to the very values and concerns that the BT holds dear. While real patriarchs, even the BT acknowledges, did not know 'Uqtzin, the patriarch of Babylonian legend must know 'Uqtzin.

Beit Rabban New York. N.Y.