Cherish my words

It was taught: One should interrupt (a meal Friday evening) for the Sabbath (kiddush). These are the words of R. Yehuda. R Yose says: it's not necessary to interrupt (the meal). It happened that Rabban Shimon b Gamliel, R Yehuda and R Yose were having a meal in Acco when the time of the Sabbath arrived. Rabban Shimon b Gamliel said to R Yose: Beribbi, (sir), with your permission, let us interrupt (our meal) and take into account the words of our colleague R. Yehuda? Responded (R. Yose): each and every day you cherish my words over the words of R. Yehuda, and now you cherish R. Yehuda's words in my presence, "will you also assault the queen when I'm in the house" (Esther 7:8), responded (Rabban Shimon b Gamliel): if so, we won't interrupt (the meal). -Pesahim 100a

This story, which appears near the beginning of the chapter Arve Pesahim, is usually understood as follows: Rabban Shimon b Gamliel was accustomed to follow R Yose's ruling and didn't interrupt his meal at the start of the Sabbath. But this time, in the presence of R Yehuda he wished to follow R Yehuda's view. R Yose objected and R Shimon b Gamliel retracted. However, this interpretation leaves many questions unanswered:

• Why does R Yose say, "usually you cherish my opinion". He should say: "usually you follow my opinion"
  
• If Rabban Shimon b Gamliel did usually follow R. Yose's opinion, why did he now wish to follow R Yehuda?
  
• What did R Yose say that made R Shimon b Gamliel change his mind?
  
• How is R Yose's quote from the book of Esther relevant and how far does the parallel between the current meal and the story in Esther go?
  
• Finally why is it important for us to know that the story occurred in Acco?
  

Some (later) sages considered R Yose a greater authority than R Yehuda. See for example, (Eruvin 46b), R. Yakob and R. Zriqa both said: the law follows ... R Yose (when he argues) with his colleagues...R Yaakov b Idi said in the name of R Yohanan... (in a dispute between) R Yehuda and R Yose the law is according to R Yose. See also (Gittin 67a) where Rabbi answers his son, "hush, you have never seen R Yose. Had you seen him, (you would have seen) how that reason is with him." Nevertheless, when it comes to practice there are often other considerations.

Rabban Shimon b Gamliel was the Nasi (president) of the Great Sanhedrin. The seat of the Sanhedrin was in Usha. Usha was also the home of R Yehuda. In fact (according to Menahot 104a) R Yehuda was "moryana debe nesia", the halachic authority in the house of the Nasi (all their practices followed his decisions - Rashi). Thus, in the Nasi's home, and in R Yehuda's territory (Usha), one followed R Yehuda's opinions. Elsewhere one followed the generally agreed upon opinion which may not accord with R Yehuda.

The talmud mentions similar examples: (Shabbat 130a) In R Eliezer's place they chopped trees to make charcoal to make an iron (circumcision knife) on the Sabbath (for a Sabbath circumcision). In R Yose Ha Galili's place they ate fowl with dairy.

R Yose lived in Tzipori. In fact, (Sabbath 33) R Yose was exiled by the Romans to his home town of Tzipori (for 12 years?). If he ever did come to Usha he never objected there, since Usha was the place of R Yehuda.

But our story takes place in Acco (Acre). The Nasi asked R Yose if they could follow the opinion of R Yehuda, which was the opinion that the Nasi himself usually followed. (And R Yehuda was present.) In other words, R Shimon b Gamliel saw the meal in Acco as some sort of extension of a meal in the house of the Nasi. R Yose, however, refused. He explained his position this way: Rabban Shimon b Gamliel cherishes his words over the words of R Yehuda. The Nasi doesn't usually have the opportunity to follow his words but now that they are in Acco, there's no reason to follow R Yehuda. R Yose quotes from the book of Esther to support his argument.

The passage from Esther is usually understood (as translated above) to indicate that the king accused Haman of assaulting the queen sexually, but other translations are possible. R Amos Hakham, in his commentary to Esther (Daat Mikrah) suggests that instead of translating the Hebrew root kbs as assaulting, we can translate it as pleading (trying to influence the queen to spare his life). This involved falling at the queens feet and (probably) holding on to her legs, which angered the king.

We can argue along the same lines that Haman's mistake consisted of begging for his life from the queen instead of from the king. The sense of the king's words is something like "If I'm not here, I understand that you'll go and petition the queen for your life, but since I am here you should petition me because I'm the authority."

R Yosi's argument is similar. "In Usha where I'm not present you may follow R Yehuda, but everywhere else, (as you admit by cherishing my words over others) I'm the authority". This was a good argument and R Shimon b Gamliel accepted it.

Sources: Encyclopedia LeChachemei Hatalmud VeGeonim - Mordechai Margalioth

Special thanks to Yaakov Aryeh.