The Oral Talmud with Benay Lappe and Dan Libenson Episode 13

Rabbi Aḥa bar Ḥanina said: It is revealed and known before the One Who spoke and the world came into being that in the generation of Rabbi Meir there was no one of the Sages who was his equal. Why then didn’t the Sages establish the halakha in accordance with his opinion? Because his colleagues couldn't "stand on the end of his mind," as he would state with regard to a ritually impure item that it is pure, and justify that ruling, and likewise he would state with regard to a ritually pure item that it is impure, and justify that ruling. The Sages were unable to distinguish between the statements that were halakha and those that were not.

It was taught in a baraita: Rabbi Meir was not his name; rather, Rabbi Nehorai was his name. And why was he called by the name Rabbi Meir? It was because he illuminates [meir] the eyes of the Sages in matters of the halakha. And Rabbi Nehorai was not the name of the tanna known by that name; rather, Rabbi Neḥemya was his name, and some say: Rabbi Elazar ben Arakh was his name. And why was he called by the name Rabbi Nehorai? It is because he enlightens [manhir] the eyes of the Sages in matters of the halakha.

The Gemara relates that Rabbi Yehuda HaNasi said: The fact that I am sharper than my colleagues is due to the fact that I saw Rabbi Meir from behind, i.e., I sat behind him when I was his student. Had I seen him from the front, I would be even sharper, as it is written: “And your eyes shall see your teacher” (Isaiah 30:20). Seeing the face of one’s teacher increases one’s understanding and sharpens one’s mind.

Rabbi Abbahu said that Rabbi Yoḥanan said: Rabbi Meir had a disciple, and his name was Sumkhus, who would state with regard to each and every matter of ritual impurity forty-eight reasons in support of the ruling of impurity, and with regard to each and every matter of ritual purity forty-eight reasons in support of the ruling of purity. It was taught in a baraita: There was a distinguished student at Yavneh who could with his sharp intellect purify the sheretz/creeping animal explicitly deemed to be, by definition, ritually impure by the Torah, with one hundred and fifty different proofs in support of his argument.

Ravina said: I can do that! I too will deliberate and purify it employing the following reasoning ("from the Torah"): And just as a snake that kills people and animals and thereby increases ritual impurity in the world, by creating corpses which impart impurity, is nevertheless itself ritually pure and transmits no impurity, a sheretz/creeping animal that does not kill and does not increase impurity in the world, shouldn't it all the more so be pure?! The Gemara rejects this: No, it is not so! That is not a valid a fortiori argument, as it can be refuted by the obvious example of a thorn, i.e., the snake is performing a mere act of a thorn: A thorn causes injury and even death but everyone knows that it is not itself ritually impure. The same applies to a snake, and therefore this a fortiori argument attempting to prove that a definitionally impure sheretz/creeping animal is actually pure, is rejected.