(Text from here . English from here. Italics are my comments.)
תנו רבנן כשחלה רבי יוסי בן קיסמא הלך רבי חנינא בן תרדיון לבקרו
The rabbis taught: When R. Jose b. Kisma became sick, R. Hanina b. Tradian called on him; Visiting sick beds is a surprisingly common setting for Talmudic stories. Perhaps because it is a forum where Sages can meet in a context that is not officially halachic?
אמר לו חנינא אחי <אחי> אי אתה יודע שאומה זו מן השמים המליכוה שהחריבה את ביתו ושרפה את היכלו והרגה את חסידיו ואבדה את טוביו ועדיין היא קיימת ואני שמעתי עליך שאתה יושב ועוסק בתורה [ומקהיל קהלות ברבים] וספר מונח לך בחיקך
the former said to him: Hanina, my brother, are you not aware that this nation is reigning by heavenly decree, and notwithstanding that she has destroyed the Temple, burned the palaces, killed the pious and put out of the way all the best of Israel, she is still in force. About you, however, I heard that notwithstanding the decree of the government, you occupy yourself with the Torah publicly, and you bear with you the Holy Scrolls at all time.
אמר לו מן השמים ירחמו אמר לו אני אומר לך דברים של טעם ואתה אומר לי מן השמים ירחמו תמה אני אם לא ישרפו אותךthe former said to him: Hanina, my brother, are you not aware that this nation is reigning by heavenly decree, and notwithstanding that she has destroyed the Temple, burned the palaces, killed the pious and put out of the way all the best of Israel, she is still in force. About you, however, I heard that notwithstanding the decree of the government, you occupy yourself with the Torah publicly, and you bear with you the Holy Scrolls at all time.
ואת ספר תורה באש
Hanina then answered: The heavens shall have mercy with us. Exclaimed Jose: I am relating to you reasons, and you say, the heavens shall have mercy. I wonder whether the government will not burn you with the Holy Scrolls on fire? (I'd prefer a translation that conveys a bit more of the indignation- "I'm talking logic and you say 'the heavens will have mercy'?! I wouldn't be surprised if they burn you and the torah with you!" )
Thus far, the Talmud has presented us with the basic debate of Moderates and Zealots. Interestingly, it presents it quite like a debate between pragmatists and idealists- R' Yossi says that one ought to look at reality and evaluate risks sensibly. R' Chanina's reply can either be interpreted as brushing him off, or as a firm idealistic conviction that G-d is on his side, and so nothing can happen to him. Also interesting the way that they trade Divine Providence views- R' Yossi judging it from history, R' Chanina projecting his philosophy into the future.
And which view does the Talmud take? Well, there it's beautifully vague. On one hand, the argument is pretty similar to one that R' Akiva had with Pappus. In that case, R' Akiva is distinctly allowed the last word, and the Moderate's argument is put in the mouth of a disbeliever. Here, on the other hand, it's being said by one of the great Tannaim, whose dire predictions, in this case, turn out to be prescient. On the other other hand, when that time comes, R' Chanina doesn't seem particularly non-plussed.
And which view does the Talmud take? Well, there it's beautifully vague. On one hand, the argument is pretty similar to one that R' Akiva had with Pappus. In that case, R' Akiva is distinctly allowed the last word, and the Moderate's argument is put in the mouth of a disbeliever. Here, on the other hand, it's being said by one of the great Tannaim, whose dire predictions, in this case, turn out to be prescient. On the other other hand, when that time comes, R' Chanina doesn't seem particularly non-plussed.
אמר לו רבי מה אני לחיי העולם הבא אמר לו כלום מעשה בא לידך אמר לו מעות של פורים נתחלפו לי במעות של צדקה וחלקתים לעניים אמר לו אם כן מחלקך יהי חלקי ומגורלך יהי גורלי
Hanina then said: Rabbi, what will become of me in the world to come? And Jose asked him: Did not some of the meritorious acts come to your hand? And he answered: The money which I prepared to celebrate Purim, I erred, thinking that it was of the charity treasury; I have distributed it to the poor, and thereafter I have not collected from the charity. If so, answered Jose, I wish that my share should be like yours, and my fate similar.
Besides being a whole halachic mess of its own, this passage seems like a total tangent. Does the fact that R' Chanina fears for his world to come and relies on his miztvot rather than his learning give us any answers as to whether he is right in risking his life. And what does this particular mitzva have to do with anything? An example of self-sacrifice? I feel as if there might be something there with Purim specifically, as relating to foreign oppressors, etc, but I can't quite put my finger on it. Also, ironic structuring with the one not on his death bed worrying about his world to come- as compared to the many stories out there with the dying man asking for reassurance that he will merit it. Foreshadowing that R' Chanina is also going to die pretty soon? Or perhaps he's agreeing with R' Yossi's predictions and accepting upon himself the status of someone about to die? And what about this last line? Is R' Yossi's statement admiration for the good deed, or ceding some other point in the argument?
Besides being a whole halachic mess of its own, this passage seems like a total tangent. Does the fact that R' Chanina fears for his world to come and relies on his miztvot rather than his learning give us any answers as to whether he is right in risking his life. And what does this particular mitzva have to do with anything? An example of self-sacrifice? I feel as if there might be something there with Purim specifically, as relating to foreign oppressors, etc, but I can't quite put my finger on it. Also, ironic structuring with the one not on his death bed worrying about his world to come- as compared to the many stories out there with the dying man asking for reassurance that he will merit it. Foreshadowing that R' Chanina is also going to die pretty soon? Or perhaps he's agreeing with R' Yossi's predictions and accepting upon himself the status of someone about to die? And what about this last line? Is R' Yossi's statement admiration for the good deed, or ceding some other point in the argument?
אמרו לא היו ימים מועטים עד שנפטר רבי יוסי בן קיסמא והלכו כל גדולי רומי לקברו והספידוהו הספד גדול ובחזרתן מצאוהו לרבי חנינא בן תרדיון שהיה יושב ועוסק בתורה ומקהיל קהלות ברבים וס"ת מונח לו בחיקו הביאוהו וכרכוהו בס"ת והקיפוהו בחבילי זמורות והציתו בהן את האור והביאו ספוגין של צמר ושראום במים והניחום על לבו כדי שלא תצא נשמתו מהרה
It was said that a few days later R. Jose ben Kisma departed, and all the great men of Rome were going after his coffin, lamenting him greatly. On their return, they found Hanina b. Tradian studying the Torah publicly with the Holy Scrolls in his bosom; he was enwrapped in the Holy Scrolls and surrounded with branches of trees, which were kindled. And two woollen towels, soaked in water, were placed on his heart that his soul might not depart so quickly,
Definitely something intentional going on by juxtaposing the two deaths, but not really giving anything conclusive towards taking sides. Yes, we have R' Yossi's prediction fulfilled completely, but he also ends up dead. With all the Romans attending his funeral- is this meant to be a good thing or a bad thing? Note that R' Chanina didn't attend the funeral, although he seems to have respected R' Yossi. Maybe the funeral got entirely co-opted by the Romans, which could be seen as an ironic result of R' Yossi's being so loyal to them- he becomes 'theirs' and no longer the Jews'.
אמרה לו בתו אבא אראך בכך אמר לה אילמלי אני נשרפתי לבדי היה הדבר קשה לי עכשיו שאני נשרף וס"ת עמי מי שמבקש עלבונה של ס"ת הוא יבקש עלבוני אמרו לו תלמידיו רבי מה אתה רואה אמר להן גליון נשרפין ואותיות פורחותDefinitely something intentional going on by juxtaposing the two deaths, but not really giving anything conclusive towards taking sides. Yes, we have R' Yossi's prediction fulfilled completely, but he also ends up dead. With all the Romans attending his funeral- is this meant to be a good thing or a bad thing? Note that R' Chanina didn't attend the funeral, although he seems to have respected R' Yossi. Maybe the funeral got entirely co-opted by the Romans, which could be seen as an ironic result of R' Yossi's being so loyal to them- he becomes 'theirs' and no longer the Jews'.
Why is one of the questions from the daughter and one from the students? The daughter reacting more emotionally and the students trying to get the last bits of inspiration. What kind of a question is "what do you see?" anyway? Actually, both questions can be seen as the shattered idealists looking to have this cruel reality explained to them- how can this be? The daughter's question- does this disprove the ideals? The answer can be read- How can you say that this disproves anything if it's happening to the Torah itself as well? Obviously, being destroyed doesn't prove that you're in the wrong. And the students' question "What about the future? Is this the end of the hope? And the answer is that the parchment may burn, but the letters fly away and escape.
אף אתה פתח פיך ותכנס [בך] האש אמר להן מוטב שיטלנה מי שנתנה ואל יחבל הוא בעצמו אמר לו קלצטונירי רבי אם אני מרבה בשלהבת ונוטל ספוגין של צמר מעל לבך אתה מביאני לחיי העולם הבא אמר לו הן השבע לי נשבע לו מיד הרבה בשלהבת ונטל ספוגין של צמר מעל לבו יצאה נשמתו במהרה אף הוא קפץ ונפל לתוך האור יצאה בת קול ואמרה רבי חנינא בן תרדיון וקלצטונירי מזומנין הן לחיי העולם הבא בכה רבי ואמר יש קונה עולמו בשעה אחת ויש קונה עולמו בכמה שנים
They said to him: Rabbi, open your mouth, so that the fire should catch you, (better translation "you too, open your mouth that the fire may enter you") and he answered: It is better that my soul be taken by Him who gave it and not I myself shall cause it an earlier death. The executioner then said to him: Rabbi, if I will increase this fire and will take off the woollen towels from your heart, would you bring me to life in the world to come? To which he answered, Yea. He then asked him to swear, which he did. Immediately he increased the fire, took off the towels, and his soul departed. The executioner himself then jumped into the fire. A heavenly voice was then heard: Hanina and the executioner are prepared for life in the world to come. Rabbi then wept, saying: There is one again who bought his world in one moment, etc.What's the you too? Continuing from the previous answer about the parchment- if the parchment burning doesn't matter, than why don't you die as well? The answer- because it's not for me to decide.
And then we get into lovely ambiguities about suicide. Three main statements- 1)R' Chanina won't hasten his own death. 2) He encourages the executioner to speed things up and promises him heaven for assisting in his 'suicide' and 3) The executioner kills himself and earns his world to come. Distinction between active suicide and removing obstacles for death? And what exactly is the deal with non-Jews and suicide?
Also- if the executioner has switched sides, why doesn't he try to save R' Chanina's life? Can we presume that all of the other Roman officials are there watching the whole thing? In which case, the executioner is probably about to be killed rather nastily in a moment or so. And just to confound the whole issue, the text writes the suicide literally as "he jumped and fell into the fire", very deliberately clouding the issue of whether it was suicide. Not about to give us any answers there.
Another point- notice theme of acheiving world to come- R' Chanina asks how he can get it, and decides that it lies in one small charitable act. The executioner gets it in one massive self sacrifice, making Rebbi weep and reflect that for some it takes a moment and for some a life-time. Definite theme going there.
And here's another fascinating thing about the whole story. When R' Chanina was killed, his wife was killed as well and one daughter was forcibly put into a brothel. This could have been the daughter who asked the question- looking for something to fortify her- but that also could have been...Bruria. Yeah, Bruria. Adds a whole new perspective to the whole thing? And note the suicide tie-in. And what if she was the one to ask the question? Does that change anything about her story? Does this help us understand why she was unable to cope with moral failure? I have no idea...
Which just illustrates once again the joy that can be gotten out of really reading something- with as much literary analysis as you can throw at it.
No comments:
Post a Comment