Pt2 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 second and final part of a two-part series. Part 1 is here; the outline of the series can be found at Part 1.

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

אחוו להו בחלמייהו:

זילו פייסוהו [לרבן שמעון בן גמליאל],

רבי נתן אזל,

רבי מאיר לא אזל,

אמר: דברי חלומות לא מעלין ולא מורידין.

R’ Meir and R’ Natan were shown a message in their dreams:

Go, appease Rabban Shimon ben Gamliel.

R’ Natan went.

R’ Meir did not go.

He said in his heart: Matters of dreams are insignificant.¹

כי אזל רבי נתן,

אמר ליה רבן שמעון בן גמליאל:

נהי דאהני לך קמרא דאבוך למהוי אב בית דין,

שויניך נמי נשיא?!

When R’ Natan went,

Rabban Shimon ben Gamliel said to him:

Although the ornate belt,² i.e., the importance, of your father was effective in enabling you to become deputy Nasi, as R’ Natan’s father was the Babylonian Exilarch,

will it render you Nasi as well?!

Aftermath: Much later dialogue between R’ Yehuda HaNasi and his son Rabban Shimon re citing R’ Meir and R’ Natan explicitly

R’ Yehuda HaNasi, the compiler of the Mishnah, explained to his son why the names of such great sages were not mentioned, recalling that they had once “sought to uproot your father’s honor”

מתני ליה רבי לרבן שמעון בריה,

אחרים אומרים:

אילו היה תמורה —

לא היה קרב

Years later, R’ Yehuda HaNasi taught (מתני) Rabban Shimon his son that

Aḥerim say:

If it was considered a substitute —

it would not be sacrificed.³

אמר לו:

מי הם הללו

שמימיהם אנו שותים

ושמותם אין אנו מזכירים?

אמר ליה:

בני אדם שבקשו לעקור כבודך

וכבוד בית אביך.

R’ Yehuda HaNasi’s son Rabban Shimon said to him:

Who are these rabbis

whose water we drink

but whose names we do not mention?

R’ Yehuda HaNasi said to him:

They are people who sought to abolish your honor

and the honor of your father’s house.

(Ecclesiastes 9:6; Psalms 9:7)

R’ Yehuda HaNasi’s son Rabban Shimon questioned why the names of R’ Meir and R’ Natan could not be restored, citing Ecclesiastes 9:6 (implicitly arguing that since they had long passed away, their rivalries were irrelevant).

אמר ליה:

1. ״גם אהבתם

2. גם שנאתם

3. גם קנאתם

כבר אבדה״

His son said to him, citing the verse:

1. “Their love

2. as well as their hatred

3. 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.

R’ Yehuda replied with Psalms 9:7 (implicitly arguing that although they had died, the damage they caused to the honor of the Nasi still endured, so their names should remain suppressed).

אמר ליה:

״האויב תמו

חרבות לנצח״

R’ 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 (his son) countered that since their attempt had ultimately failed, their actions had no lasting effect.

R’ Yehuda HaNasi was persuaded, and thereafter explicitly attributed the original halakhic ruling to R’ Meir (instead of the original anonymous “others”).

אמר ליה:

הני מלי היכא דאהנו מעשייהו,

רבנן לא אהנו מעשייהו!

הדר אתני ליה,

אמרו משום רבי מאיר:

אילו היה תמורה —

לא היה קרב.

Rabban Shimon said to his father:

These matters apply in a case where their actions were effective.

In the case of these rabbis, their actions were not effective.

R’ Yehuda HaNasi then taught him:

The rabbis said in the name of R’ Meir:

If it was considered a substitute —

it would not be sacrificed.

Rava - despite being humble, Yehuda HaNasi still only cited them indirectly—“they said in the name of R’ Meir”—but not as direct attributions

אמר רבא:

אפילו רבי דענוותנא הוא (תנא),

״אמרו משום רבי מאיר״.

״אמר רבי מאיר״ לא אמר.

Rava said:

Even R’ Yehuda HaNasi, who is humble (ענוותנא),

taught: “The rabbis said in the name of (משום) R’ Meir”

But he did not say directly: “R’ Meir said”

Appendix 1 - 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)

Horayot.14a.3-6⁴

R’ Yoḥanan - Dispute: “Sinai” (encyclopedic) vs “uproots mountains” (analytical) — which is preferable

אמר רבי יוחנן:

פליגו בה

• רבן שמעון בן גמליאל

• ורבנן,

• חד אמר:

  • סיני עדיף,

• וחד אמר:

  • עוקר הרים עדיף.

§ R’ Yoḥanan said:

disagreed with regard to this matter

• Rabban Shimon ben Gamliel

• and the Rabbis

• One said:

  • Sinai, i.e., one who is extremely knowledgeable, is preferable;

• and one said:

  • One who uproots mountains, i.e., one who is extremely incisive, is preferable.

Message from Eretz Yisrael - “Sinai” preferable: “All need the owner of the wheat”

(See footnote.)⁵

• רב יוסף

  • סיני,

• רבה

  • עוקר הרים.

שלחו לתמן: איזה מהם קודם?

שלחו להו:

סיני עדיף,

דאמר מר: הכל צריכין למרי חטיא,

The Talmud relates that this is not merely a theoretical dispute; rather, at one point it had practical ramifications.

• Rav Yosef

  • was Sinai;

• Rabba

  • was one who uproots mountains.

They sent a message from Babylonia to there, Eretz Yisrael: Which takes precedence?

They sent in response:

Sinai is preferable,

as the Master said: Everyone requires the owner of the wheat, i.e., one who is expert in the sources.

ואפילו הכי לא קביל רב יוסף עליה.

מלך רבה עשרין ותרתי שנין,

והדר מלך רב יוסף.

וכל שני דמלך רבה —

רב יוסף אפילו אומנא לביתיה לא (חליף).

And even so, Rav Yosef did not accept upon himself the appointment of head of the yeshiva.

Rabba reigned for 22 years,

and then Rav Yosef reigned.

The Talmud relates that in all those years that Rabba presided —

Rav Yosef did not even call a bloodletter to his home.

Rav Yosef did not assume even the slightest air of authority, in deference to Rabba, and would go to seek out the bloodletter rather than expecting that the bloodletter would accommodate him.

Story of Abaye, Rava, R’ Zeira, and Rabba bar Mattana choosing who should be the head

1. אביי

2. ורבא

3. ורבי זירא

4. ורבה בר מתנה

הוו יתבי

והוו צריכי רישא,

The Talmud relates:

1. Abaye,

2. Rava,

3. R’ Zeira,

4. and Rabba bar Mattana

were sitting and studying in a group

and were in need of a head for their group.

אמרי:

כל דאמר מלתא ולא מפריך —

להוי רישא.

דכולהו איפריך,

דאביי לא איפריך.

חזייה רבה לאביי דגבה רישא,

אמר ליה:

נחמני!

פתח ואימא

They said:

Let anyone who will say a matter that is not refuted —

be the head.

Everyone’s statements were refuted,

and the statement of Abaye was not refuted.

Rabba saw that Abaye raised his head, i.e., he noticed that his statement was not refuted.

Rabba said to him:

Naḥmani! calling Abaye by his name rather than by his nickname,

begin and say your lecture.

R’ Zeira vs. Rabba bar Rav Mattana: who is preferable?

איבעיא להו:

• רבי זירא

• ורבה בר רב מתנה --

הי מנייהו עדיף?

• רבי זירא

  • חריף ומקשה,

• ורבה בר רב מתנה

  • מתון ומסיק,

מאי?

תיקו.

A dilemma was raised before the rabbis:

Between

• R’ Zeira

• and Rabba bar Rav Mattana,

which of them is preferable?

• R’ Zeira

  • is incisive and raises pertinent difficulties,

• and Rabba bar Rav Mattana

  • is moderate and not so incisive, but ultimately he draws the appropriate conclusions.

What is the conclusion? Which is preferable?

The Talmud concludes: The dilemma shall stand unresolved.

Appendix 2 - Anecdotes of Stewardship, Property Conversion, and Non-Intervention (Gittin 52a)

Gittin.52a.13-16

Anecdote of R’ Meir - Dreams as Non-Evidence

A steward (אפוטרופוס) sold orphans’ land and purchased slaves instead; R’ Meir blocked the transaction as improper. Even after a dream framed the act as divinely endorsed destruction, R’ Meir dismissed it, asserting that dreams have no probative force in legal or ethical judgment.

ההוא אפוטרופוס דהוה בשבבותיה דרבי מאיר,

דהוה קא מזבין ארעתא וזבין עבדי,

ולא שבקיה רבי מאיר

It is related that there was a certain steward who was in R’ Meir’s neighborhood

who was selling land belonging to the orphans and purchasing slaves with the proceeds,

and R’ Meir did not allow him to do this, as the practice is contrary to halakha.

אחוו ליה בחלמיה:

״אני להרוס

ואתה לבנות?!״

They showed him in his dream the words:

I wish to destroy

and you build?!

He understood this as a sign that God wanted the orphans to suffer financial collapse, and therefore it would be preferable to allow the steward to continue his practice.

אפילו הכי לא אשגח,

אמר:

דברי חלומות לא מעלין ולא מורידין.

Even so, R’ Meir paid no heed to his dream,

and said:

Words appearing in dreams do not bring up and do not take down;

they should not be taken into consideration.

Anecdote of R’ Meir - Disruptor of Discord

Two men habitually quarreled (מינצו) every Friday late afternoon, incited (איגרי) by Satan. R’ Meir intervened over 3 consecutive Fridays until reconciliation was achieved, prompting Satan to lament his own expulsion from the household (implying that sustained conflict constitutes Satan’s presence).

הנהו בי תרי דאיגרי בהו שטן,

דכל בי שמשי הוו קא מינצו בהדי הדדי.

איקלע רבי מאיר להתם,

עכבינהו תלתא בי שמשי,

עד דעבד להו שלמא

Apropos an incident involving R’ Meir, the Talmud relates another story about him:

There were two people who, incited by Satan,

would argue with each other every Friday afternoon at twilight.

R’ Meir happened to come to the place where they argued.

He stopped them from fighting 3 Friday afternoons at twilight,

until finally he made peace between them.

שמעיה דקאמר:

ווי,

דאפקיה רבי מאיר לההוא גברא מביתיה.

He then heard Satan say:

Woe,

that R’ Meir removed that man, Satan, from his house.

This indicates that Satan himself lives among those who have discord.

Anecdote of R’ Yehoshua ben Levi - Functional Equivalence of land and oxen

A steward sold land to buy oxen, and R’ Yehoshua ben Levi raised no objection.

ההוא אפוטרופוס דהוה בשבבותיה דרבי יהושע בן לוי,

דהוה קא מזבין ארעא וזבין תורי,

ולא אמר ליה ולא מידי

It is related that there was a certain steward of orphans who was in the neighborhood of R’ Yehoshua ben Levi

who was selling land and buying oxen on behalf of the orphans,

and he did not say anything to the steward to the effect that he was acting improperly.

The Talmud interprets R’ Yehoshua ben Levi’s behavior that he presupposes R’ Yosei’s formulation that an ox is effectively “the field”.⁶

סבר לה כרבי יוסי –

דתניא,

אמר רבי יוסי:

מימי

לא קריתי

• לאשתי

  • ״אשתי״

• ולשורי

  • ״שורי״,

אלא

• לאשתי

  • ״ביתי״,

• ולשורי

  • ״שדי״.

The Talmud explains that R’ Yehoshua ben Levi holds in accordance with the opinion of R’ Yosei,

as it is taught in a baraita that

R’ Yosei said:

In all my days,

I did not call

• my wife:

  • My wife,

• nor my ox:

  • My ox.

Rather, I called

• my wife:

  • My home,

  • because she is the essence of my home,

• and I called my ox:

  • My field,

  • because the primary force behind enhancements to the field is the ox that plows it.

Similarly, R’ Yehoshua ben Levi maintains that purchasing oxen to work the land is considered like purchasing land itself and that consequently a protest should not be raised against the steward, who sold land belonging to the orphans in order to purchase oxen with the proceeds.

Anecdote of Rav Naḥman - De Facto Stewardship by Caretakers

An elderly woman caring for orphans sold their ox; relatives objected. Rav Naḥman validated her authority on the basis that caretakers with whom orphans reside acquire de facto steward status without formal appointment.

הנהו יתמי דהוו סמיכי גבי ההיא סבתא.

הוה להו תורתא,

שקלה וזבינתה ניהלייהו.

אתו קרובים לקמיה דרב נחמן,

אמרו ליה: מאי עבידתה דמזבנא?

אמר להו: ״יתומים שסמכו אצל בעל הבית״ תנן.

It is further related that certain orphans who lived with an old woman

had an ox,

and she took it and sold it on their behalf.

Relatives of those orphans came before Rav Naḥman

and said to him: What is she doing selling the orphans’ property? Who authorized her to do so?

Rav Naḥman said to them: We learned from the phrase in the Mishnah: If orphans are living with a homeowner, that official appointment as a steward is not necessary.

The fact that the orphans lived with the woman and she took care of them sufficed to bestow upon her the authority of a steward.

1. לא מעלין ולא מורידין - literally: “do not raise and do not lower”, i.e. don’t matter.

This same line appears in a number of other places as well, see the appendix at the end of this piece, “Appendix 2 - Anecdotes of Stewardship, Property Conversion, and Non-Intervention (Gittin 52a)”, section “R’ Meir and Dreams as Non-Evidence“.

And see also in tractate Sanhedrin, as part of a longer baraita, Sanhedrin.30a.9:

הרי שהיה מצטער על מעות שהניח לו אביו,

ובא בעל החלום

ואמר לו:

״כך וכך הן״,

״במקום פלוני הן״,

״של מעשר שני הן״.

זה היה מעשה,

ואמרו:

דברי חלומות לא מעלין ולא מורידין.

In a case where one was distressed about money that his father left him as an inheritance, because he could not find it,

and the master of the dream, i.e., someone in his dream, came

and said to him:

It is such and such an amount of money

and it is in such and such a place,

but the money is second tithe,

and he found this amount in the place of which he dreamed;

and this was an actual incident that was brought before the Sages,

and they said that

he can spend the money, as matters appearing in dreams do not make a difference in determining the practical halakha.

However, contrast that attitude of dismissal towards dreams with the lengthy aggadic sugya of dreams in tractate Berachot, see all my analyses of that sugya in my general index, Berakhot 55b-57b.

2. קמרא.

On this word, see Jastrow (modernized):

קָמוֹר

(קְמַר) belt.

• Aramaic Targum to Psalms 18:33 (ed. Vilna קָמוּר);

• Aramaic Targum to Psalms 18:40.

• Aramaic Targum to Psalms 109:19.

• Targum Jonathan on Leviticus 16:4 (ed. Amst. קַמּוּרָא);

• and elsewhere.

• Shabbat 59b:13 - קמרא שרי - “a woman is permitted to go out on the Sabbath with a (gold) belt”

• Ibid. - קמרא עילוי וכ׳ - “how about wearing a ḳamra over a hemyan (see הֶמְיָין)”

• Horayot 13b:17 - נהי דאהני לך קמרא וכ׳ (Ein Yaaḳov קוּמְרָא) - “because your father’s (official) belt helped you to be president of the court, must we make you Nasi?!”

3. This is a line in a Mishnah in Bekhorot.9.8 (=Bekhorot.60a.9). See also later.

4. On the central question in this sugya, see Hebrew Wikipedia, “סיני ועוקר הרים“, especially ibid. section “הדיון בתלמוד הבבלי“.

5. Much of the following is paralleled elsewhere, see my “Appendix 3: Patience and Destiny in Leadership: Rabba and Rav Yosef (Berakhot 64a)”.

6. Thus, converting land into productive livestock is not a loss but a functional substitution.

This statement of R’ Yosei is quoted elsewhere as well, see my “Fifteen Sequential Reflections of R’ Yosei on His Life and Values: Aspirations and Personal Conduct in His Own Words (Shabbat 118b)“, list item #11.