Pt1 Hierarchy, Honor, and Challenge: The Dramatic Story of Rabban Shimon ben Gamliel vs. R’ Meir and R’ Natan and Its Aftermath (Horayot 13b-14a)
This is the first part of a two-part series. The outline of the series is below.
This sugya presents a dramatic story about rabbinic hierarchy, honor, and rivalry in the 2nd century Tannaitic academy.1 It begins with a baraita outlining standing protocols for the three highest offices: when the Nasi (patriarch, head of the Sanhedrin) enters, everyone stands and remains standing until he permits them to sit. For the Av Beit Din,2 the public forms two respectful rows along his path until he takes his seat. For the Ḥakham (the “sage,” ranked third), individuals rise only when within four cubits, then sit again as he passes. This codified ritual makes visible distinctions in rank.
R’ Yoḥanan anchors these rules in history: they were instituted during the leadership of Rabban Shimon ben Gamliel (as Nasi), with R’ Meir as Ḥakham and R’ Natan as Av Beit Din. The problem arose when people rose equally for all three; Rabban Shimon, worried that his special status was blurred, demanded clearer differentiation and enacted the new honor code. Offended by the demotion, R’ Meir and R’ Natan plotted revenge. They conspired to humiliate Rabban Shimon by asking him to expound on the the halachic topic of Okatzin,3 hoping to prove him ignorant and thereby unfit to lead.
Their plan leaked: R’ Ya’akov ben Korshei, unwilling to shame the Nasi, cleverly rehearsed the halachic topic of Okatzin within earshot so that Rabban Shimon would be prepared. When challenged, Rabban Shimon delivered the tractate flawlessly and then exposed the coup. He expelled R’ Meir and R’ Natan from the study hall. Still, they continued to influence debate by sending in written questions and answers. R’ Yosei protested that “Torah is outside while we are inside,” leading eventually to their readmission, but under permanent censure: their teachings could never again be cited by name. Henceforth, R’ Meir became “Others” (Aḥerim) and R’ Natan, “Some say” (Yesh omrim).
The episode carried long-lasting effects. Even R’ Yehuda HaNasi, compiler of the Mishnah and himself known for humility, referred to R’ Meir indirectly (“they said in the name of R’ Meir”) rather than attributing him outright. In conversation with his son Rabban Shimon, he explained that these figures once sought to “uproot your father’s honor,” and so their names remained suppressed, despite counterarguments that their attempted coup had failed and their deaths had made old rivalries irrelevant.
The sugya then pivots to a related theme: the qualities of rabbinic leadership. Is it preferable to be a “Sinai”—encyclopedic, storing all sources like the owner of the wheat—or to “uproot mountains,” incisively analytical? The Talmud records this as a live question in the generations after Rabban Shimon: between Rav Yosef (Sinai) and Rabba (uproots mountains), between Abaye and Rava, between R’ Zeira and Rabba bar Rav Mattana. Messages from Eretz Yisrael declared Sinai preferable, but practical realities and personalities shaped who led and for how long.
These debates, together with the earlier political intrigue, reveal a central concern: who deserves deference, how is honor publicly displayed, and what qualities truly make a leader in Torah.
Outline
Intro
The Passage - Hierarchy, Honor, and Challenge: The Dramatic Story of Rabban Shimon ben Gamliel vs. R’ Meir and R’ Natan and Its Aftermath (Horayot 13b-14a)
Baraita - honor protocol: Standing rules for Nasi, Av Beit Din, and Ḥakham
R’ Yoḥanan - historical note - Protocol instituted under Rabban Shimon ben Gamliel (Nasi), with R’ Meir (Ḥakham) and R’ Natan (Av Beit Din)
Rabban Shimon ben Gamliel noticed that the public rose in respect both for him and for his deputies, R’ Meir and R’ Natan, in equal measure
Disturbed that his unique status as Nasi was not being visibly distinguished, Rabban Shimon ben Gamliel issued a new regulation: different protocols of honor should be observed (so that his higher rank would be unmistakable)
R’ Meir and R’ Natan, are affronted by the loss of public deference and find out about the decision
They plot retaliation
They schemed to expose Rabban Shimon’s ignorance by challenging him with tractate Okatzin; Had he failed to teach it, they planned to declare him unfit for leadership and to install themselves in his place.
Their conspiracy was overheard by R’ Ya’akov ben Korshei, who, alarmed at the prospect of humiliating the Nasi, quietly ensured that Rabban Shimon would be prepared
Thus, when confronted, Rabban Shimon delivered a lesson in Okatzin; He then turned the attempted coup back upon its instigators, and expelled them from the study hall
They would send in written challenges and solutions; R’ Yosei objected that “Torah is outside while we are inside”
Eventually they were readmitted, but with a lasting penalty: their teachings could never again be cited in their own names; R’ Meir’s words were attributed to “Others” (Aḥerim), and R’ Natan’s to “Some say” (Yesh omrim)
Part 2
R’ Meir and R’ Natan were shown a message in their dreams: Go, appease Rabban Shimon ben Gamliel; R’ Natan went, R’ Meir didn’t
Aftermath: Much later dialogue between R’ Yehuda HaNasi and his son Rabban Shimon re citing R’ Meir and R’ Natan explicitly
(Ecclesiastes 9:6; Psalms 9:7)
Rava - despite being humble, Yehuda HaNasi still only cited them indirectly—“they said in the name of R’ Meir”—but not as direct attributions
Appendix - Various intellectual strengths of scholars: “Sinai” (encyclopedic) vs “uproots mountains” (analytical), Rabbah vs Rav Yosef, R’ Zeira vs. Rabbah bar Rav Mattana vs. Abaye vs. Rava (Horayot 14a)
R’ Yoḥanan - Dispute: “Sinai” (encyclopedic) vs “uproots mountains” (analytical) — which is preferable
Message from Eretz Yisrael - “Sinai” preferable: “All need the owner of the wheat”
Story of Abaye, Rava, R’ Zeira, and Rabba bar Mattana choosing who should be the head
R’ Zeira vs. Rabba bar Rav Mattana: who is preferable?
The Passage
Baraita - honor protocol: Standing rules for Nasi, Av Beit Din, and Ḥakham
תנו רבנן:
כשהנשיא נכנס,
כל העם עומדים,
ואין יושבים עד שאומר להם: שבו.
כשאב בית דין נכנס,
עושים לו שורה אחת מכאן ושורה אחת מכאן,
עד שישב במקומו.
כשחכם נכנס,
אחד עומד ואחד יושב,
עד שישב במקומו.
[...]
§ A baraita states:
When the Nasi of the Sanhedrin enters,
all the people stand
and they do not sit until he says to them: Sit.
When the Av Beit Din of the Sanhedrin enters,
the people form for him one row from here, on this side of the path that he takes, and one row from there, on the other side of it, in a display of deference,
until he sits in his place, and then they may be seated.
When the Ḥakham, who is ranked third among the members of the Sanhedrin, enters,
one person stands when he is within four cubits of the Ḥakham, and another sits, i.e., when one is no longer within four cubits of the Ḥakham he may sit.
And all those whom the Ḥakham passes do this, until he sits in his place.
[...]
R’ Yoḥanan - historical note - Protocol instituted under Rabban Shimon ben Gamliel (Nasi), with R’ Meir (Ḥakham) and R’ Natan (Av Beit Din)
אמר רבי יוחנן:
בימי רבן שמעון בן גמליאל נישנית משנה זו.
רבן שמעון בן גמליאל
נשיא,
רבי מאיר
חכם,
רבי נתן
אב בית דין
§ R’ Yoḥanan says:
This Mishnah, i.e., the preceding baraita, was taught during the days of Rabban Shimon ben Gamliel.
Rabban Shimon ben Gamliel
was the Nasi,
R’ Meir
was the Ḥakham,
and R’ Natan
was the Av Beit Din
Rabban Shimon ben Gamliel noticed that the public rose in respect both for him and for his deputies, R’ Meir and R’ Natan, in equal measure
כי הוה רבן שמעון בן גמליאל התם,
הוו קיימי כולי עלמא מקמיה.
כי הוו עיילי רבי מאיר ורבי נתן,
הוו קיימי כולי עלמא מקמייהו.
When Rabban Shimon ben Gamliel was there,
everyone would arise before him.
When R’ Meir and R’ Natan would enter,
everyone would arise before them.
Disturbed that his unique status as Nasi was not being visibly distinguished, Rabban Shimon ben Gamliel issued a new regulation: different protocols of honor should be observed (so that his higher rank would be unmistakable)
אמר רבן שמעון בן גמליאל:
לא בעו למיהוי היכרא בין דילי לדידהו?!
תקין הא מתניתא.
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?!
Rabban Shimon ben Gamliel instituted the provisions delineated in this baraita that distinguish between the Nasi and his subordinates with regard to the deference shown them.
R’ Meir and R’ Natan, are affronted by the loss of public deference and find out about the decision
ההוא יומא לא הוו רבי מאיר ורבי נתן התם,
למחר כי אתו חזו דלא קמו מקמייהו כדרגילא מילתא,
אמרי: מאי האי?!
אמרו להו: הכי תקין רבן שמעון בן גמליאל.
That day, when Rabban Shimon ben Gamliel instituted these provisions, R’ Meir and R’ Natan were not there.
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.
They plot retaliation
אמר ליה רבי מאיר לרבי נתן:
אנא
חכם
ואת
אב בית דין,
נתקין מילתא כי לדידן.
R’ Meir said to R’ Natan:
I
am the Ḥakham
and you
are the Av Beit Din
Let us devise a matter and do to him as he did to us.
They schemed to expose Rabban Shimon’s ignorance by challenging him with tractate Okatzin; Had he failed to teach it, they planned to declare him unfit for leadership and to install themselves in his place.
מאי נעביד ליה?
נימא ליה: גלי עוקצים, דלית ליה.
וכיון דלא גמר,
נימא ליה: ״מי ימלל גבורות ה׳ ישמיע כל תהלתו״,
למי נאה למלל גבורות ה׳?
מי שיכול להשמיע כל תהלותיו.
נעבריה, והוי אנא אב בית דין ואת נשיא.
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, he will not have anything to say.
Then we will say to him: “Who can express the mighty acts of YHWH, shall make all His praises heard?” (Psalms 106:2),
indicating: For whom is it becoming to express the mighty acts of YHWH?
It is becoming for one who is capable of making all His praises heard, and not for one who does not know one of the tractates.
We will remove him from his position as Nasi, and I will be Av Beit Din and you will be Nasi.
Their conspiracy was overheard by R’ Ya’akov ben Korshei, who, alarmed at the prospect of humiliating the Nasi, quietly ensured that Rabban Shimon would be prepared
שמעינהו רבי יעקב בן קדשי,
אמר: דלמא חס ושלום אתיא מלתא לידי כיסופא,
אזל יתיב אחורי עיליתיה דרבן שמעון בן גמליאל,
פשט,
גרס ותנא,
גרס ותנא.
R’ Ya’akov ben Korshei (רבי יעקב בן קרשי) 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 R’ Meir and R’ Natan, so he went and sat behind the upper story where Rabban Shimon ben Gamliel lived.
He explained (פשט) tractate Okatzin;
he studied (גרס) it aloud and repeated (תנא) it,
and studied it aloud and repeated it.
Thus, when confronted, Rabban Shimon delivered a lesson in Okatzin; He then turned the attempted coup back upon its instigators, and expelled them from the study hall
אמר: מאי דקמא?
דלמא חס ושלום איכא בי מדרשא מידי,
יהב דעתיה וגרסה.
למחר אמרו ליה: ניתי מר וניתני בעוקצין,
פתח ואמר.
בתר דאוקים,
אמר להו: אי לא גמירנא, כסיפיתנן.
פקיד ואפקינהו מבי מדרשא.
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 R’ Meir and R’ Natan were planning something.
He concentrated and studied tractate Okatzin.
The following day R’ Meir and R’ 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 R’ Meir and R’ Natan from the study hall as punishment.
They would send in written challenges and solutions; R’ Yosei objected that “Torah is outside while we are inside”
(See footnote).4
הוו כתבי קושייתא [בפתקא] ושדו התם.
דהוה מיפריק –
מיפריק,
דלא הוו מיפריק –
כתבי פירוקי ושדו.
אמר להו רבי יוסי:
תורה מבחוץ
ואנו מבפנים?!
R’ Meir and R’ 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,
R’ Meir and R’ Natan wrote resolutions on a scrap of paper and threw them into the study hall.
R’ Yosei said to the rabbis:
How is it that the Torah, embodied in the preeminent Torah scholars, is outside
and we are inside?!
Eventually they were readmitted, but with a lasting penalty: their teachings could never again be cited in their own names; R’ Meir’s words were attributed to “Others” (Aḥerim), and R’ Natan’s to “Some say” (Yesh omrim)
אמר להן רבן [שמעון בן] גמליאל:
ניעיילינהו,
מיהו ניקנסינהו דלא נימרו שמעתא משמייהו.
אסיקו
לרבי מאיר
אחרים,
ולרבי נתן
יש אומרים.
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 R’ Meir
in the name of Aḥerim, meaning: “Others”5
and they cited statements of R’ Natan
in the name of yesh omerim, meaning: “Some say”
Compare the similar story in my two-part series “Power, Pedagogy, and Internal Rabbinic Politics: The Deposition of Rabban Gamliel, the Appointment of R’ Elazar ben Azarya, and Eventual Reconciliation (Berakhot 27b-28a)“, final part here.
This is part of a larger macro discussion of leadership and hierarchy, see part of this in my three-part series “‘When a King Sins’: Sin, Reward, and Responsibility in Talmudic Theology (Horayot 10a-b)“, final part here.
On the importance of honor and recognition of hierarchy, see also for example in my “Pt2 Counting Jews and Evaluating Kings: Saul, David, and Leadership in the Book of Samuel (Yoma 22b)“, section “Rav Yehuda citing Rav - Saul was punished because he waived royal honor“, and my note there.
Literally “father of the court”. In this context, the deputy.
One of the most obscure tractates of the Mishnah.
See a similar trope in the story in my piece yesterday, “Pt2 R’ Elazar ben Shimon: His Life and Afterlife (Bava Metzia 84b-85a)“, section “Flashback: Young R’ Elazar b. Shimon and R’ Yehuda HaNasi studied together, impressing masters“, where intellectual exchange in the study hall leads to questions of physical placement (there, sitting on the floor versus on a bench).
In fact, the same metaphor used there for receiving Torah knowledge from another—“we drink their water” (מימיהן אנו שותים)—appears again later in this story (in the forthcoming Part 2 of this series).