Today’s daf talks a lot about rank and order… meaning if the high priest needs to offer a sacrifice for himself and the community, he does his own first. If a Cohen and an Israelite need to offer sacrifices the Cohen goes first, etc. We get this with the topics of who offers sacrifices, who buries a body that is unknown, who is rescued from capture first, and so on. Our gem comes when we get to a section about courts. If you recall, Jewish courts are made up of a minimum of 3. The gem comes when the most superior member of the court makes a ruling when the other two are not around . . .
Rabban Shimon ben Gamliel was the Nasi, Rabbi Meir was the Ḥakham, and Rabbi Natan was the deputy Nasi. When Rabban Shimon ben Gamliel was there, everyone would arise before him. When Rabbi Meir and Rabbi Natan would enter, everyone would arise before them. Rabban Shimon ben Gamliel said: Shouldn’t there be a conspicuous distinction between me and them in terms of the manner in which deference is shown?
3 important men. When they enter, everyone rises. But the Nasi, he is the most elevated. He wants to differentiate himself. . .
That day, when Rabban Shimon ben Gamliel instituted these provisions, Rabbi Meir and Rabbi Natan were not there.
This is described earlier in the daf. Every one rises for the Nasi and no one sits until he says to sit (like judges today); for the deputy Nasi, the people closest to him form lines standing (but not everyone); for the Ḥakham, they kind of do the wave – they stand as he approaches but sit right back down after he has passed.
The following day when they came to the study hall, they saw that the people did not stand before them as the matter was typically done. They said: What is this? The people said to them: This is what Rabban Shimon ben Gamliel instituted.
Busted. What will they do now, when the Nasi is not around?
Rabbi Meir said to Rabbi Natan: I am the Ḥakham and you are the deputy Nasi. Let us devise a matter and do to him as he did to us. What shall we do to him? Let us say to him: Reveal to us tractate Okatzim, which he does not know. And once it is clear to all that he did not learn . . . We will remove him from his position as Nasi, and I will be deputy Nasi and you will be Nasi.
Oh no! They plan to embarrass him and have him removed as Nasi. But of course htere is a twist.
Rabbi Ya’akov ben Korshei heard them talking, and said: Perhaps, Heaven forfend, this matter will come to a situation of humiliation for Rabban Shimon ben Gamliel. He did not wish to speak criticism or gossip about Rabbi Meir and Rabbi Natan, so he went and sat behind the upper story where Rabban Shimon ben Gamliel lived. He explained tractate Okatzin; he studied it aloud and repeated it, and studied it aloud and repeated it. Rabban Shimon ben Gamliel said to himself: What is this that is transpiring before us? Perhaps, Heaven forfend, there is something transpiring in the study hall. He suspected that Rabbi Meir and Rabbi Natan were planning something. He concentrated and studied tractate Okatzin.
So a fan of Rabban Shimon ben Gamiliel studies loudly nearby to ensure his rabbi will learn this difficult tractate and not embarrass himself.
The following day Rabbi Meir and Rabbi Natan said to him: Let the Master come and teach a lesson in tractate Okatzin. He began and stated the lesson he had prepared. After he completed teaching the tractate, he said to them: If I had not studied the tractate, you would have humiliated me. Rabban Shimon ben Gamliel commanded those present and they expelled Rabbi Meir and Rabbi Natan from the study hall as punishment.
So, they tried to oust Gamliel and ended up being kicked out themselves!
Rabbi Meir and Rabbi Natan would write difficulties on a scrap of paper [pitka] and would throw them there into the study hall. Those difficulties that were resolved were resolved; as for those that were not resolved, Rabbi Meir and Rabbi Natan wrote resolutions on a scrap of paper and threw them into the study hall. Rabbi Yosei said to the Sages: How is it that the Torah, embodied in the preeminent Torah scholars, is outside and we are inside? Rabban Shimon ben Gamliel said to them: Let us admit them into the study hall. But we will penalize them in that we will not cite halakha in their names. They cited statements of Rabbi Meir in the name of Aḥerim, meaning: Others, and they cited statements of Rabbi Natan in the name of yesh omerim, meaning: Some say.
Ouch! They could only be re-admitted if they lost the honor of having rulings declared in their names. But it doesn’t end here. (it ends on tomorrows daf!
Years later, Rabbi Yehuda HaNasi taught Rabban Shimon his son that Aḥerim say: If it was considered a substitute, it would not be sacrificed.
Rabbi Yehuda HaNasi’s son said to him: Who are these Sages whose water we drink but whose names we do not mention? Rabbi Yehuda HaNasi said to him: They are people who sought to abolish your honor and the honor of your father’s house. His son said to him, citing the verse: “Their love as well as their hatred and their envy is long ago perished” (Ecclesiastes 9:6): That was long ago and they have already died. Therefore, there is no harm in mentioning their names. Rabbi Yehuda HaNasi said to him: But it is also stated: “The enemy are come to an end; the wasted places are forever” (Psalms 9:7). Although the enemies died, the desolation that they created remains. Therefore, although they are dead, their names should not be mentioned. Rabban Shimon said to his father: These matters apply in a case where their actions were effective. In the case of these Sages, their actions were not effective. Rabbi Yehuda HaNasi then taught him: The Sages said in the name of Rabbi Meir: If it was considered a substitute, it would not be sacrificed. Rava said: Even Rabbi Yehuda HaNasi, who is humble, taught: The Sages said in the name of Rabbi Meir. But he did not say directly: Rabbi Meir said.
Wow, talk about holding a grudge! Even after their deaths it took the kids of the Sages to convince them to use the names of Rabbi Meir and Rabbi Natan again.
The moral of the story? That’s a great question.
Perhaps it’s that leaders should get buy-in before making decisions, especially from those who are effected by the new rules.
We can also learn that even the best of rabbis have character faults. I mean, we have one guy with ego, two with vengeance, then the first guy holds a grudge.
Last, we can learn from younger people. They may be more open minded than we are.
2,711 pages of Talmud. A gem a day. 