תנורו של עכנאי חלק ג -דמותו של ר' אליעזר בן הורקנוס

תנורו של עכנאי חלק ג - דמותו של ר' אליעזר בן הורקנוס

שש

(א) מעשה ברבי אליעזר בן הורקנוס, שהיו לאביו חורשים והיו חורשים על גבי המענה, והוא היה חורש בטרשין. ישב לו והיה בוכה. אמר לו אביו, מפני מה אתה בוכה? שמא מצטער אתה שאתה חורש בטרשין? עכשיו אתה חורש על גבי המענה. ישב לו על גבי המענה והיה בוכה. אמר לו מפני מה אתה בוכה? שמא מצטער אתה שאתה חורש על גבי המענה? אמר לו, לאו. ולמה את בוכה? אמר לו, שאני מבקש ללמד תורה. אמר לו והלא בן עשרים ושמונה שנים אתה, ואתה מבקש ללמד תורה. אלא קח לך אשה ותוליד לך בנים ואתה מוליכן לבית הספר. עשה שתי שבתות ולא טעם כלום עד שנגלה לו אליהו זכור לטוב, ואמר לו, בן הורקנוס, למה אתה בוכה? אמר לו מפני שאני מבקש ללמד תורה. אמר לו, אם אתה מבקש ללמד תורה, עלה לירושלים אצל רבן יוחנן בן זכאי. עמד והלך אצל רבן יוחנן בן זכאי. ישב לו והיה בוכה. אמר לו, מפני מה אתה בוכה? אמר לו, מפני שאני מבקש ללמד תורה. אמר לו, בן מי אתה? ולא הגיד לו.

(ב) אמר לו, מימיך לא למדת קריאת שמע ולא תפלה ולא ברכת המזון? אמר לו לאו. אמר לו עמד ואלמדך שלשתן. ישב והיה בוכה. אמר לו, בני, מפני מה אתה בוכה? אמר לו, שאני מבקש ללמד תורה. והיה אומר לו שתי הלכות כל ימי השבוע, והיה חוזר לו עליהן ומדבקן. עשה שמונה ימים ולא טעם כלום עד שעלה ריח פיו לפני רבן יוחנן בן זכאי, והעמידו מלפניו. ישב והיה בוכה. אמר לו מפני מה אתה בוכה? אמר לו, מפני שהעמדתני מלפניך כאדם שמעמיד מלפניו מכה שחין. אמר לו, בני, כשם שעלה ריח פיך מלפני, כך יעלה ריח חקי תורה מפיך לשמים. אמר לו, בני, בן מי אתה? אמר לו בן הורקנוס אני. אמר לו, והלא בן גדולי עולם אתה, ולא היית מגיד לי! אמר לו, חייך, היום אתה סועד אצלי. אמר לו, כבר סעדתי אצל אכסניא שלי. אמר לו, ומי הוא אכסניא שלך? אמר לו, רבי יהושע בן חנניה, ורבי יוסי הכהן.

(ג) שלח ושאל לאכסניא שלו, אמר להם, אצלכם סעד אליעזר היום? אמרו לו, לאו. והלא יש לו שמונה ימים שלא טעם כלום. אחרי כן הלכו רבי יהושע בן חנניה ורבי יוסי הכהן ואמרו לו לרבן יוחנן בן זכאי, והלא יש לו שמונה ימים שלא טעם כלום.

מה יחסו של ר' אליעזר בן הורקנוס ללימוד תורה על פי סיפור זה?

Pirkei DeRabbi Eliezer 1

(1) CHAPTER I
THE CHAPTERS OF RABBI ELIEZER THE GREAT¹ Also called “Baraitha of Rabbi Eliezer”; see supra, Introduction, and cf. Zunz, G.V., p. 283, Weiss, Dor Dor veDorshav, iii. p. 290, and Hamburger, Real-Ency. s. 11. i. pp. 162 ff., on the P.R.E. The first two chapters are probably a later addition to the Midrash contained in the rest of the “Chapters.” They form a very good introduction to this pseudepigraphic book, which was attributed to the famous teacher, Rabbi Eliezer the Great. The third chapter opens with the name of Rabbi Eliezer. The MS. fragment of our book in the British Museum which Horowitz has edited in his Sammlung Kleiner Midraschim, i. 4 ff., begins with the third chapter. The same fact obtains in some of the fragments contained in the Bodleian Library. For the biography of Rabbi Eliezer ben Hyrḳanos see Bacher, T. i. pp. 96 ff., and J.E. v. 113 ff., where a bibliography is added. Our “Chapters” contain about twenty dicta attributed to R. Eliezer; see Bacher, op. cit. pp. 122 f., who considers all these sayings as pseudepigraphic. The subject-matter of the first two chapters of our book is to be found in Aboth d. R. Nathan (a) vi., (b) xiii., Jalḳuṭ, Gen. §72, and Gen. Rab. xlii. (in the new edition of Theodor, ch. xli., where further parallels are given in the notes on p. 397). Various recensions of the first two chapters have been published by Horowitz, Beth ‘Eḳed Ha-Hagadoth, pp. 7 ff.
RABBI ELIEZER AND THE TORAH² The headings to the chapters have been added by the translator. The numbers in the square brackets after the headings indicate the pages and columns of the MS. [1B. i.]
THE following befell Rabbi Eliezer, son of Hyrḳanos. His father had many ploughmen³ Gen. Rab. xlii. 1 and Jalḳuṭ, Gen., loc. cit., read: “his brethren were ploughing in the plain, whereas he was ploughing on the mountain.” The 1st and 2nd eds. omit the word “many.” who were ploughing arable ground,⁴ Lit. “were ploughing upon the surface of the furrow.” Cf. Ps. cxxix. 3 for the word “furrows,” whereas he was ploughing a stony plot; he sat down and wept. His father said to him: O my son! Why dost thou weep? Art thou perchance distressed because thou dost plough a stony plot? In the past thou hast ploughed a stony plot,¹ These words are omitted in the 1st and 2nd eds. now behold thou shalt plough with us arable soil.² This would be easier labour. At this point the MS. adds the second letter of the Hebrew alphabet to signify the beginning of the second paragraph. The 1st and 2nd eds. omit “with us.” He sat down on the arable ground and wept. His father said to him: But why dost thou weep? Art thou perchance distressed because thou art ploughing the arable land? He replied to him: No. (Hyrḳanos) said to him: Why dost thou weep? He answered him: I weep only because I desire to learn Torah.³ Torah is not merely the written word of God, but also its oral interpretation. The term sums up all that is implied by Religion and Ethics. (Hyrḳanos) said to him: Verily thou art twenty-eight years old⁴ Aboth d. R. Nathan (a) vi. reads “22 years,” and cf. ibid. (b) xiii.—yet dost thou desire to learn Torah? Nay, go, take thee a wife and beget sons and thou wilt take them to the school.⁵ Thy merit will be accounted as though thou didst study the Torah; see T.B. Ḳiddushin, 30a, for this doctrine. The second paragraph in MS. ends here. He fasted two weeks⁶ “He was distressed for three weeks” is the reading in Aboth d. R. Nathan (b) xiii. On “weeks” see Krauss, T.A. ii. pp. 422 f.; and note 784. not tasting || anything, until Elijah⁷ On Elijah in Rabbinical literature see J.E. v. 122 ff. In our work the Elijah story and legends are treated at considerable length. In Christian books Elijah also appears; see Mark ix. 4 ff. and Matt. xvii. 11. In the Gospel of Barnabas (124a) Elijah rebukes a man for weeping. See also Coptic Apocrypha, ed. Budge, p. 265, for a further parallel. Elijah is the “comforter” in Jewish and Christian literature, and in this capacity he is the forerunner of the Messiah.— may he be remembered for good⁸ On this expression see Zunz, Zur Gesch. pp. 321 ff.—appeared to him and said to him: Son of Hyrḳanos! Why dost thou weep? He replied to him: Because I desire to learn Torah. (Elijah) said to him: If thou desirest to learn Torah get thee up to Jerusalem to Rabban Jochanan ben Ẓakkai.⁹ The greatest teacher of his day, who preserved Judaism in spite of the overthrow of the Jewish State by the Romans, in the year 70 C.E. For his biography see Bacher, T. i. pp. 22 ff., and J.E. vii. 214 ff. Graetz, Geschichte der Juden, iv. pp. 11 ff., Schürer, ii. 366 ff., and Schlatter’s biography should be consulted. He arose and went up to Jerusalem to R. Jochanan ben Ẓakkai and sat down and wept. (R. Jochanan) said to him: Why dost thou weep? He answered him: Because I wish to learn Torah. (R. Jochanan) said to him: Whose son art thou? But he did not tell him.

(2) (R. Jochanan) asked him: Hast thou never learnt¹ Aboth d. R. Nathan (b) xiii. reads: “Didst thou never go to school?” to read the Shema',² The “Shema’” is the Jewish confession of faith. It is set forth in Deut. vi. 4–9, etc.; see Singer, pp. 40 ff., and J.E. xi. 266. or the Tephillah,³ The “Tephillah” or “Shemoneh ‘ Esreh,” the Jewish prayer par excellence, is to be found in Singer, pp. 44 ff.; see R.É.J. xix. pp. 17 ff., and J.E. xi. 270 ff. Our “Chapters” deal with the subject-matter of the “Shemoneh ‘Esreh”; cf. Zunz, G. V., p. 285, and S. Sachs in “Ha-Techiyah,” pp. 21 f. On the question as to the relation between Sirach and the “Shemoneh ‘Esreh” see Oesterley’s edition of Ecclesiasticus, pp. 232 and 349 f. or the Grace after meals?⁴ The Geniẓah Fragment has: “the reading of the Grace after meals.” On Grace after meals see Singer, pp. 280 ff., and J.E. vi. 61 f. He replied to him: No. He arose⁵ The student stood whilst learning; see T.B. Megillah, 21a. The 1st and 2nd eds. read: “He said, Stand, and I will teach thee the three (prayers).” and (R. Jochanan) taught him the three (prayers).⁶ In the MS. the fourth paragraph begins here. (Again) he sat down and wept. (R. Jochanan) said to him: My son, why dost thou weep? He replied: Because I desire to learn Torah.⁷ And not merely prayers. He (thereupon) taught him two rules (of the Law)⁸ “Halakhoth,” i.e. laws to be observed by the Jews, based upon the Torah. Thus, according to Matt. xii. 1–8, Jesus discusses Halakhah. The final decisions become Halakhoth; cf. Mark vii. 5 and Luke xi. 40 f. See Bacher, Terminologie, i. s.v. הלכה, pp. 42 f. every day of the week, and on the Sabbath⁹ The first two editions omit “on the Sabbath.” (Eliezer) repeated them and assimilated them.¹⁰ In the MS. this is the end of the fourth paragraph. He kept a fast for eight days without tasting anything until the odour of his mouth attracted the attention of R. Jochanan ben Ẓakkai, who directed him to withdraw from his presence. He sat down and wept. (R. Jochanan) said to him: My son, why dost thou weep? He rejoined: Because thou didst make me withdraw from thy presence just as a man makes his fellow withdraw, when the latter is afflicted with leprosy. (R. Jochanan) said to him: My son, just as || the odour of thy mouth has ascended before me, so may the savour of the statutes of the Torah ascend from thy mouth to Heaven.¹¹ In Aboth d. R. Nathan (b) xiii. the reading is: “So may the teaching of thy mouth go forth from one end of the world to the other.” He said to him: My son! Whose son art thou? He replied: I am the son of Hyrḳanos. Then said (R. Jochanan): Art thou not the son of one of the great men of the world,¹ Hyrḳanos was a very wealthy man. and thou didst not tell me? By thy life! he continued, This day shalt thou eat with me.² In MS. the sixth paragraph begins here. (Eliezer) answered: I have eaten already with my host.³ Akhsania (ξϵvia), hospitality, lodging, host. According to Aboth d. R. Nathan (a) vi., Eliezer was silent when R. Jochanan asked him whether he had partaken of food. (R. Jochanan) asked: Who is thy host? He replied: R. Joshua ben Chananjah⁴ See Bacher, T. i. pp. 123 ff., and J.E. vii. 290 ff. and R. José the Priest.⁵ See Bacher. T. i. pp. 67 ff., and J.E. vii. 243 ff.

(3) (R. Jochanan) sent to inquire of his hosts, saying to them: Did Eliezer eat with you this day? They answered: No; moreover has he not fasted eight days without tasting any food?⁶ Here begins the seventh paragraph in the MS. The Geniẓah Fragment continues: “Moreover.” R. Joshua ben Chananjah and R. José the Priest⁷ Aboth d. R. Nathan (b) xiii. adds: “R. Simeon ben Nathaniel.” went and said⁸ Some of the old printed editions read here: “Has he not been without food for the last eight days?” Luria, in loc., thinks that the last clause was spoken by R. Jochanan to the Rabbis who visited him, telling them that Eliezer had not eaten at his table. Aboth d. R. Nathan (loc. cit.) refers to R. Jochanan’s grief at this neglect, which might have cost Eliezer’s life. to R. Jochanan ben ḳakkai: Verily during the last eight days (Eliezer) has not partaken of any food.⁹ The Geniẓah Fragment adds: “And he compelled him to eat and to drink, and on the morrow” (also).

חגיגה ג׳ ב

דתניא מעשה בר' יוסי בן דורמסקית שהלך להקביל פני ר' אלעזר בלוד אמר לו מה חידוש היה בבהמ"ד היום
א"ל נמנו וגמרו עמון ומואב מעשרין מעשר עני בשביעית אמר לו יוסי פשוט ידיך וקבל עיניך פשט ידיו וקבל עיניו בכה ר' אלעזר ואמר (תהלים כה, יד) סוד ה' ליראיו ובריתו להודיעם אמר לו לך אמור להם אל תחושו למניינכם כך מקובלני מרבן יוחנן בן זכאי ששמע מרבו ורבו מרבו הלכתא למשה מסיני עמון ומואב מעשרין מעשר עני בשביעית מה טעם הרבה כרכים כבשו עולי מצרים ולא כבשום עולי בבל מפני שקדושה ראשונה קדשה לשעתה ולא קדשה לעתיד לבא והניחום כדי שיסמכו עליהן עניים בשביעית תנא לאחר שנתיישבה דעתו אמר יהי רצון שיחזרו עיני יוסי למקומן וחזרו

מה העונש שגזר ר' אליעזר על ר' יוסי בן דורמסקית?

שאלת העמקה: מדוע גזר עליו עונש זה?

מהיכן יודע ר' אליעזר כי עמון ומואב מעשרין מעשר שני בשביעית?
מדוע לדעתכם מדגיש ר' אליעזר את השתלשלות ההלכה?

שאלת העמקה: האם לדעתך ר' אליעזר בן הורקנוס שם דגש על כך שהלכה למשה מסיני או על המסורת, השתלשלות ההלכה? נמק

Chagigah 3b

“And who is like Your people, Israel, one nation in the land?” (I Chronicles 17:21). The Gemara adds: And Rabbi Elazar ben Azarya also commenced his lecture and taught: It is written: “The words of the wise are as goads, and as nails well fastened are those that are composed in collections; they are given from one shepherd” (Ecclesiastes 12:11). Why are matters of Torah compared to a goad? To tell you that just as this goad directs the cow to her furrow to bring forth sustenance for life to the world, so too the words of Torah direct those who study them from the paths of death to the paths of life. The Gemara asks: If so, derive the following from that same analogy: Just as this goad is movable and not rigid, so too matters of Torah are movable in accordance with circumstance and are not permanent. Therefore, the verse states: “Nails,” which are permanent. The Gemara further asks: If so, one can explain as follows: Just as this nail is diminished in size and does not expand, as it wastes away over time, so too matters of Torah are gradually diminished and do not expand. Therefore, the verse states: “Well fastened [netuim].” Just as this plant [neti’a] flourishes and multiplies, so too matters of Torah flourish and multiply. “Those that are composed in collections [ba’alei asufot]”: These are Torah scholars who sit in many groups [asupot] and engage in Torah study. There are often debates among these groups, as some of these Sages render an object or person ritually impure and these render it pure; these prohibit an action and these permit it; these deem an item invalid and these deem it valid. Lest a person say: Now, how can I study Torah when it contains so many different opinions? The verse states that they are all “given from one shepherd.” One God gave them; one leader, i.e., Moses, said them from the mouth of the Master of all creation, Blessed be He, as it is written: “And God spoke all these words” (Exodus 20:1). The plural form “words” indicates that God transmitted all the interpretations of the Ten Commandments. Since the Sages invariably utilize the Torah itself or the statements of the prophets as the sources for their opinions, there is a certain unity to the study of Torah, despite the numerous explanations and applications. So too you, the student, make your ears like a funnel and acquire for yourself an understanding heart to hear both the statements of those who render objects ritually impure and the statements of those who render them pure; the statements of those who prohibit actions and the statements of those who permit them; the statements of those who deem items invalid and the statements of those who deem them valid. When Rabbi Yehoshua heard these interpretations, he said to them in these words: No generation is considered orphaned, i.e. without a leader, if Rabbi Elazar ben Azarya dwells among it. The Gemara asks: But Rabbi Yoḥanan ben Beroka and Rabbi Elazar ben Ḥisma should have told Rabbi Yehoshua these statements of Rabbi Elazar ben Azarya directly, without delay. Why did they hesitate at first? The Gemara answers: They were hesitant due to an incident that occurred. As it is taught in a baraita: There was an incident involving Rabbi Yosei ben Durmaskit, who went to greet Rabbi Eliezer in Lod. Rabbi Elazar said to him: What novel idea was taught today in the study hall? Rabbi Yosei ben Durmaskit said to him: The Sages assembled, counted the votes, and concluded that although the lands of Ammon and Moab on the eastern side of the Jordan River are not part of Eretz Yisrael, and therefore the halakhot of the Sabbatical Year and tithes should not apply to them, as these lands are adjacent to Eretz Yisrael, one separates the poor man’s tithe there in the Sabbatical Year. Since the Sages debated which tithes should be separated, they had to take a vote to determine the halakha in this regard. Rabbi Elazar said to him in anger: Yosei, extend your hands and catch your eyes, which are about to come out of their sockets. He extended his hands and caught his eyes. Rabbi Elazar wept and said the verse: “The counsel of the Lord is with them who fear Him; and His covenant, to make them know it” (Psalms 25:14), i.e., the Sages arrived at the correct conclusion, although they were unaware of the proper rationale behind it. Rabbi Elazar said to Rabbi Yosei to go and say to the Sages in the study hall: Do not be concerned with regard to your counting, that you might not have ruled properly, as you have not in fact instituted a new ordinance at all. This is the tradition that I received from Rabban Yoḥanan ben Zakkai, who heard from his teacher, and his teacher from his teacher: It is a halakha transmitted to Moses from Sinai that in Ammon and Moab one separates the poor man’s tithe in the Sabbatical Year. What is the reason? Those who ascended from Egypt conquered many cities, and those who ascended from Babylonia did not conquer them after the destruction of the First Temple. This difference is important, because the first consecration of Eretz Yisrael, by those who ascended from Egypt, caused it to be sanctified only for its time and it was not sanctified forever, as that depended on the renewed conquest of the land by the Jewish people. And those who ascended from Babylonia left those cities aside and did not consider them part of Eretz Yisrael even after Jewish settlement was renewed there. They would plow and harvest in these places in the Sabbatical Year and tithe the poor man’s tithe, so that the poor of Eretz Yisrael, who did not have sufficient income from the previous years, could rely upon that produce in the Sabbatical Year, receiving help from this tithe. It was taught that after Rabbi Elazar’s mind was put at ease, he said: May it be God’s will that Rabbi Yosei’s eyes should return to their place. And indeed his eyes returned. Due to this event, in which Rabbi Elazar responded harshly when his disciple related what he considered a novel idea, the students of Rabbi Yehoshua hesitated to recount what they had heard until their teacher encouraged them to do so. § The Sages taught: Who is considered an imbecile? One who goes out alone at night, and one who sleeps in a cemetery, and one who rends his garment. It was stated that Rav Huna said: One does not have the halakhic status of an imbecile until there are all of these signs present in him at the same time. Rabbi Yoḥanan said: He is considered an imbecile even due to the appearance of one of these signs. The Gemara asks: What are the circumstances of the case under discussion? If he performs them in a deranged manner, then even the appearance of one sign should be enough to classify him as an imbecile. If he does not perform these actions in a deranged manner, but has a reason to act this way, then even if he performs all of them he should not be deemed an imbecile. The Gemara answers: Actually, the baraita is referring to one who performs these actions in a deranged manner, but each action on its own could be explained rationally. With regard to one who sleeps in the cemetery, one could say that he is doing so in order that an impure spirit should settle upon him. Although it is inappropriate to do this, as there is a reason for this behavior it is not a sign of madness. And with regard to one who goes out alone at night, one could say that perhaps a fever took hold of him and he is trying to cool himself down. And as for one who tears his garments, one could say that he is a man engaged in thought, and out of anxiety he tears his clothing unintentionally. Despite these possible explanations, since one performed all of these together they are considered

סנהדרין ס״ח א

והתניא כשחלה ר' אליעזר נכנסו ר' עקיבא וחביריו לבקרו הוא יושב בקינוף שלו והן יושבין בטרקלין שלו ואותו היום ע"ש היה ונכנס הורקנוס בנו לחלוץ תפליו גער בו ויצא בנזיפה אמר להן לחביריו כמדומה אני שדעתו של אבא נטרפה אמר להן דעתו ודעת אמו נטרפה היאך מניחין איסור סקילה ועוסקין באיסור שבות כיון שראו חכמים שדעתו מיושבת עליו נכנסו וישבו לפניו מרחוק ד' אמות א"ל למה באתם א"ל ללמוד תורה באנו א"ל ועד עכשיו למה לא באתם א"ל לא היה לנו פנאי אמר להן תמיה אני אם ימותו מיתת עצמן אמר לו ר' עקיבא שלי מהו אמר לו שלך קשה משלהן נטל שתי זרועותיו והניחן על לבו אמר אוי לכם שתי זרועותיי שהן כשתי ספרי תורה שנגללין הרבה תורה למדתי והרבה תורה לימדתי הרבה תורה למדתי ולא חסרתי מרבותי אפילו ככלב המלקק מן הים הרבה תורה לימדתי ולא חסרוני תלמידי אלא כמכחול בשפופרת ולא עוד אלא שאני שונה שלש מאות הלכות בבהרת עזה ולא היה אדם ששואלני בהן דבר מעולם ולא עוד אלא שאני שונה שלש מאות הלכות ואמרי לה שלשת אלפים הלכות בנטיעת קשואין ולא היה אדם שואלני בהן דבר מעולם חוץ מעקיבא בן יוסף פעם אחת אני והוא מהלכין היינו בדרך אמר לי רבי למדני בנטיעת קשואין אמרתי דבר אחד נתמלאה כל השדה קשואין אמר לי רבי למדתני נטיעתן למדני עקירתן אמרתי דבר אחד נתקבצו כולן למקום אחד אמרו לו הכדור והאמוס והקמיע וצרור המרגליות ומשקולת קטנה מהו אמר להן הן טמאין וטהרתן במה שהן מנעל שעל גבי האמוס מהו אמר להן הוא טהור ויצאה נשמתו בטהרה עמד רבי יהושע על רגליו ואמר הותר הנדר הותר הנדר למוצאי שבת פגע בו רבי עקיבא מן קיסרי ללוד היה מכה בבשרו עד שדמו שותת לארץ פתח עליו בשורה ואמר (מלכים ב ב, יב) אבי אבי רכב ישראל ופרשיו הרבה מעות יש לי ואין לי שולחני להרצותן

בתחילת הסיפור אנו רואים כי חכמים חוששים להיכנס לר' אליעזר.

מדוע גער ר' אליעזר בבנו?
מה בהסברו של ר' אליעזר משכנע את חכמים להיכנס אליו?
מדוע לדעתכם, גם לאחר שנכנסו אליו, ישבו החכמים במרחק 4 אמות מר' אליעזר?

הסבר את הביטויים:

הרבה תורה למדתי ולא חיסרתי מרבותי אפילו ככלב המלקק מן הים

הרבה תורה לימדתי ולא חסרוני תלמידי אלא כמכחול בשפורפרת

מה לדעתכם, כאבו הגדול ביותר של ר' אליעזר?
כיצד זה מסביר את דעתו כי החכמים ימותו בטרם זמנם?
בהספדו של ר' עקיבא הוא מתאר את ר' אליעזר כשולחני.
מהו שולחני ומדוע מתאים תאור זה לר' אליעזר ? (רמז.. בכסף של מי מתעסק שולחני?)

Sanhedrin 68a

The Gemara asks: And did Rabbi Akiva learn these halakhot from Rabbi Yehoshua? But isn’t it taught in a baraita: When Rabbi Eliezer took ill, Rabbi Akiva and his colleagues came to visit him. He was sitting on his canopied bed [bekinof ], and they were sitting in his parlor [biteraklin]; they did not know if he would be able to receive them, due to his illness. And that day was Shabbat eve, and Rabbi Eliezer’s son Hyrcanus entered to remove his phylacteries, as phylacteries are not worn on Shabbat. His father berated him, and he left reprimanded. Hyrcanus said to his father’s colleagues: It appears to me that father went insane, since he berated me for no reason. Rabbi Eliezer heard this and said to them: He, Hyrcanus, and his mother went insane. How can they neglect Shabbat preparations with regard to prohibitions punishable by stoning, such as lighting the candles and preparing hot food, and engage in preparations concerning prohibitions by rabbinic decree, such as wearing phylacteries on Shabbat? Since the Sages perceived from this retort that his mind was stable, they entered and sat before him at a distance of four cubits, as he was ostracized (see Bava Metzia 59b). It is forbidden to sit within four cubits of an ostracized person. Rabbi Eliezer said to them: Why have you come? They said to him: We have come to study Torah, as they did not want to say that they came to visit him due to his illness. Rabbi Eliezer said to them: And why have you not come until now? They said to him: We did not have spare time. Rabbi Eliezer said to them: I would be surprised if these Sages die their own death, i.e., a natural death. Rather, they will be tortured to death by the Romans. Rabbi Akiva said to him: How will my death come about? Rabbi Eliezer said to him: Your death will be worse than theirs, as you were my primary student and you did not come to study. Rabbi Eliezer raised his two arms and placed them on his heart, and he said: Woe to you, my two arms, as they are like two Torah scrolls that are now being rolled up, and will never be opened again. I have learned much Torah, and I have taught much Torah. I have learned much Torah, and I have not taken away from my teachers, i.e., I have not received from their wisdom, even like a dog lapping from the sea. I have taught much Torah, and my students have taken away from me, i.e., they have received from my wisdom, only like the tiny amount that a paintbrush removes from a tube of paint. Moreover, I can teach three hundred halakhot with regard to a snow-white leprous mark [bebaheret], but no person has ever asked me anything about them. He could not find a student who could fully understand him in those matters. Moreover, I can teach three hundred halakhot, and some say that Rabbi Eliezer said three thousand halakhot, with regard to the planting of cucumbers by sorcery, but no person has ever asked me anything about them, besides Akiva ben Yosef. Rabbi Eliezer described the incident: Once he and I were walking along the way, and he said to me: My teacher, teach me about the planting of cucumbers. I said one statement of sorcery, and the entire field became filled with cucumbers. He said to me: My teacher, you have taught me about planting them; teach me about uprooting them. I said one statement and they all were gathered to one place. After these comments, the Sages asked him questions of halakha: What is the halakha, with regard to ritual impurity, of a ball made of leather and stuffed with rags, and likewise a last, the frame on which a shoe is fashioned, which is made of leather and stuffed with rags, and likewise an amulet wrapped in leather, and a pouch for pearls, wrapped in leather, and a small weight, which is wrapped in leather? Rabbi Eliezer said to them: They are susceptible to impurity, and their purification is effected by immersing them in a ritual bath as they are, as there is no need to open them up. They asked him further: What is the halakha with regard to a shoe that is on a last? Is it considered a complete vessel, which needs no further preparation, and is therefore susceptible to impurity? Rabbi Eliezer said to them: It is pure, and with this word, his soul left him in purity. Rabbi Yehoshua stood on his feet and said: The vow is permitted; the vow is permitted; i.e., the ostracism that was placed on Rabbi Eliezer is removed. Rabbi Akiva was not present at the time of his death. At the conclusion of Shabbat, Rabbi Akiva encountered the funeral procession on his way from Caesarea to Lod. Rabbi Akiva was striking his flesh in terrible anguish and regret until his blood flowed to the earth. He began to eulogize Rabbi Eliezer in the row of those comforting the mourners, and said: “My father, my father, the chariot of Israel and its horsemen” (II Kings 2:12). I have many coins, but I do not have a money changer to whom to give them, i.e., I have many questions, but after your death I have no one who can answer them. The Gemara returns to the matter at hand: Apparently, Rabbi Akiva learned the halakhot of gathering cucumbers through sorcery from Rabbi Eliezer, not from Rabbi Yehoshua. The Gemara answers: He learned it from Rabbi Eliezer but he did not understand it. Later he learned it from Rabbi Yehoshua, and Rabbi Yehoshua explained it to him. The Gemara asks: How could Rabbi Eliezer have performed that act of sorcery? But didn’t we learn in the mishna that one who performs an act of sorcery is liable? The Gemara answers: Performing sorcery not in order to use it, but in order to teach oneself the halakhot is different, and it is permitted; as the Master says that it is derived from the verse: “You shall not learn to do like the abominations of those nations. There shall not be found among you…one who uses divination, a soothsayer, an enchanter, or a sorcerer” (Deuteronomy 18:9–10), so that you shall not learn, i.e., it is prohibited for you to learn, in order to do, but you may learn, i.e., it is permitted for you to learn, in order to understand the matter yourself and teach it to others.

סוכה כ״ח א:ב׳-ד׳

ת"ר מעשה ברבי אליעזר ששבת בגליל העליון ושאלוהו שלשים הלכות בהלכות סוכה שתים עשרה אמר להם שמעתי שמונה עשר אמר להם לא שמעתי ר' יוסי בר' יהודה אומר חילוף הדברים שמונה עשר אמר להם שמעתי שתים עשרה אמר להם לא שמעתי
אמרו לו כל דבריך אינן אלא מפי השמועה אמר להם הזקקתוני לומר דבר שלא שמעתי מפי רבותי מימי לא קדמני אדם בבית המדרש ולא ישנתי בבית המדרש לא שינת קבע ולא שינת עראי ולא הנחתי אדם בבית המדרש ויצאתי ולא שחתי שיחת חולין ולא אמרתי דבר שלא שמעתי מפי רבי מעולם

מה מעיד על עצמו ר' אליעזר?

Sukkah 28a:2-4

The Gemara answers: There is a difference between the case of the shutter and the case of the sheet. There, in the case of the shutter, where he negates it by shuttering the window, it is considered part of the building and it is therefore prohibited. However, here, in the case of the sheet, where he does not negate it, as he plans on removing it, no, it is not necessarily prohibited. The Gemara relates a similar incident. The Sages taught: There was an incident involving Rabbi Eliezer, who stayed in the Upper Galilee, and the people there asked him thirty halakhot in the halakhot of sukka. In response to twelve, he said to them: I heard an answer from my teachers, and he related what he heard. In response to the other eighteen, he said to them: I did not hear an answer. Rabbi Yosei, son of Rabbi Yehuda, says: It was the reverse of these matters. In response to eighteen he said to them: I heard an answer; in response to the other twelve he said to them: I did not hear an answer. They said to him: Are all the matters that you know only from what you heard? Don’t you say any matters on your own? He said to them: Now you forced me to say a matter that I did not hear from my teachers, as I must describe my character traits and the manner in which I conduct myself. In all my days, no person ever preceded me into the study hall, as I am always first to arrive; and I never slept in the study hall, neither substantial sleep nor a brief nap; and I never left anyone in the study hall and exited, as I was always last to leave; and I never engaged in idle conversation; rather, I discussed only necessary matters or matters of Torah; and I never said anything that I did not hear from my teacher. That is why he did not answer those questions that his teacher did not address. Apropos the character traits of Rabbi Eliezer, the Gemara cites character traits of his teacher. The Sages said about Rabban Yoḥanan ben Zakkai, the teacher of Rabbi Eliezer: In all his days he never engaged in idle conversation; and he never walked four cubits without engaging in Torah study and without donning phylacteries; and no person ever preceded him into the study hall; and he never slept in the study hall, neither substantial sleep nor a brief nap; and he never contemplated matters of Torah in alleyways filthy with human excrement, as doing so is a display of contempt for the Torah; and he never left anyone in the study hall and exited; and no person ever found him sitting and silent, i.e., inactive; rather, he was always sitting and studying; and only he opened the door for his students, disregarding his own eminent standing; and he never said anything that he did not hear from his teacher; and he never said to his students that the time has arrived to arise and leave the study hall except on Passover eves, when they were obligated to sacrifice the Paschal lamb, and Yom Kippur eves, when there is a mitzva to eat and drink abundantly. And Rabbi Eliezer, his student, accustomed himself to model his conduct after his example. The Gemara continues to praise the Sages. The Sages taught: Hillel the Elder had eighty students. Thirty of them were sufficiently worthy that the Divine Presence should rest upon them as it did upon Moses our teacher, and thirty of them were sufficiently worthy that the sun should stand still for them as it did for Joshua bin Nun, and twenty were on an intermediate level between the other two. The greatest of all the students was Yonatan ben Uzziel, and the youngest of them was Rabban Yoḥanan ben Zakkai. The Gemara relates: The Sages said about Rabban Yoḥanan ben Zakkai that he did not neglect Bible; Mishna; Gemara; halakhot and aggadot; minutiae of the Torah and minutiae of the scribes; the hermeneutical principles of the Torah with regard to a fortiori inferences and verbal analogies; the calculation of the calendrical seasons; and numerology [gimmatreyaot]. In addition, he did not neglect esoteric matters, including the conversation of ministering angels; the conversation of demons, and the conversation of palm trees; parables of launderers, which are folk tales that can be used to explain the Torah; parables of foxes; and more generally, a great matter and a small matter. The Gemara elaborates: A great matter is referring to the secrets of the Design of the Divine Chariot, the conduct of the transcendent universe. A small matter is, for example, halakhot that were ultimately formulated in the framework of the disputes of Abaye and Rava. He did not neglect any of these disciplines so as to fulfill that which is stated: “That I may cause those that love me to inherit substance and that I may fill their treasuries” (Proverbs 8:21), as Rabban Yoḥanan was filled with the disciplines of Torah and wisdom. And if the youngest of them was so prolific, the greatest of them was all the more so prolific. The Gemara relates that the Sages said of Yonatan ben Uzziel, the greatest of Hillel’s students, that when he sat and was engaged in Torah study, the sanctity that he generated was so intense that any bird that flew over him was immediately incinerated. MISHNA: In the case of one whose head and most of his body were in the sukka and his table was in the house, Beit Shammai deem it unfit, and Beit Hillel deem it fit. Beit Hillel said to Beit Shammai: And wasn’t there an incident where the Elders of Beit Shammai and the Elders of Beit Hillel went to visit Rabbi Yoḥanan ben HaḤoranit and they found him such that he was sitting with his head and most of his body in the sukka and his table in the house, and they said nothing to him? Even Beit Shammai did not object. Beit Shammai said to them: Is there proof from there? That is not what happened; rather, they said to him: If you were accustomed to act in this manner, you have never fulfilled the mitzva of sukka in your life. The mishna continues: Women, slaves, and minors are exempt from the mitzva of sukka. A minor who does not need his mother any longer is obligated in the mitzva. There was an incident where the daughter-in-law of Shammai the Elder gave birth just before Sukkot, and Shammai removed the coat of plaster from the roof, leaving the beams, and roofed with the beams over the bed for the newborn minor. GEMARA: With regard to the halakha that women, slaves, and minors are exempt from the mitzva of sukka, the Gemara asks: From where are these matters derived? The Gemara answers that it is as the Sages taught in a baraita that it is stated: “All the homeborn in Israel shall reside in sukkot” (Leviticus 23:42). Had the verse stated only: Homeborn, it would have been derived that any homeborn member of the Jewish people is obligated to observe this mitzva. However, the term with the addition of the definite article: “The homeborn,” indicates that only certain homeborn members are obligated, i.e., men, to the exclusion of the women. The word “all” in the phrase: “All the homeborn,” comes to include the minors capable of performing this mitzva. § The Gemara analyzes the baraita. The Master said: “The homeborn” is to the exclusion of women. Is that to say that the term homeborn without the definite article indicates both men and women? Isn’t it taught in a baraita with regard to Yom Kippur that it is stated: “And it shall be a statute forever unto you: In the seventh month, on the tenth day of the month, you shall afflict your souls and shall do no manner of work, the homeborn, or the stranger that sojourns among you” (Leviticus 16:29). And the term “the homeborn” in that verse comes to include homeborn women, who are obligated in the mitzva of affliction on Yom Kippur. In that case, the definite article comes to include women. Therefore, apparently, the term homeborn, without the definite article, indicates only men. Rabba said: They are each a halakha transmitted to Moses from Sinai, and the Sages merely supported them with verses as a mnemonic device. Therefore, it is not surprising that the derivations are contradictory. The Gemara asks: Which of them is derived from the verse and which is a halakha transmitted to Moses from Sinai and merely supported by a verse? And furthermore, why do I need the verse and why do I need the halakha? Isn’t sukka a positive, time-bound mitzva, and the principle is that women are exempt from all positive, time-bound mitzvot? There is no need for a special derivation to exempt women from the mitzva of sukka. And there is no need for a derivation with regard to their obligation to fast on Yom Kippur, as that can be derived from that which Rabbi Yehuda said that Rav said, as Rabbi Yehuda said that Rav said, and it was likewise taught in the school of Rabbi Yishmael: The verse says: “When a man or woman shall commit any sin that a person commits, to commit a trespass against the Lord, and that soul be guilty” (Numbers 5:6).