Temporal Life

Raba saw R Hamnuna prolonging his prayer. "They are forsaking eternal life and engaging in temporal life", he said. Shabbat 10a

It's a strange comment and a strange description of prayer. Raba certainly prayed. Assuming it's the same Raba, see Berakot 17b where the Gemara records the additional prayer that Raba said, after he would conclude his regular prayer.

Interestingly this exact phrase occurs four times in our Talmud and each time, the Talmud seems to identify with the subject and not with the author of the phrase.

R Eliezer

• The rabbis taught: It once happened that R Eliezer was sitting and lecturing the entire (festival) day about the laws of the festival. Part of the audience left ... then another group left ... a third group left...the sixth group got up to leave... He focused his eyes on his students and their faces turned white (out of fear that he was going to censure them). "Not you" he said to them, "but those who left who are forsaking eternal life and engaging in temporal life" Betza 15b
  

R Eliezer describes the study of Torah as eternal life and eating as temporal life. His description is consistent with the Gemara in Berakot 48b

• I know (the verse that requires us to recite) the grace after meals, but what about (the source for ) the blessing over the Torah? R Yshmael says: If a blessing is said for temporal life, a fortiori it should be said for eternal life

His attitude towards eating can be understood, based on what Shaul Lieberman wrote in Tosefta ki-Fshutah (vol 1 page 65) concerning the difference of opinion between Hillel and Shamai: "Shamai the elder didn't permit (one to enjoy) physical pleasure unless like one deriving pleasure involuntarily. R Eliezer follows Shamai (Nedarim 20b). Shamai's position is set forth (in his saying) in Abot d'Rabbi Natan (version b, chpt 30 Schechter edition page 33b) "let us fulfill our obligation to this body."

Hillel, on the other hand permitted one to enjoy physical pleasures if one's intention was for the sake of heaven.

• "Where are you going Hillel?" - "I am going to perform a precept (mitzvah)" - "What mitzvah, Hillel?" - "I'm going to provide a meal for the guest at home" - "Every day do you have a guest?" - "Yes, isn't this poor soul (of ours) a guest in our body? Today it's here but tomorrow it's gone" (Vayikra Rabba 34,3))

The problem for R Eliezer - that it was a festival day in which there is a religous precept (mitzva) to enjoy the festival. R Eliezer doesn't reckon enjoying the festivals as a mitzva but the Gemara does.

R Shimon b Yohai

In the famous story of R Shimon bar Yohai and his son who emerge from their cave after 12 years of Torah study:

• They (R Shimon and his son) came out. They saw people ploughing and sowing. He said, "They're forsaking eternal life and engaging in temporal life." Where ever they looked was immediately burned. A Heavenly voice called out to them, "Did you come out to destroy my world. Return to your cave" Shabbat 33b

R Shimon uses the phrase somewhat differently than R Eliezer. He seems to expect people to be fully occupied with Torah study all of the time. Again the Gemara seems to have a different opinion. Abaye sums it up elsewhere: "Many have followed the advice of of R Simeon b Yohai and have not been successful." (Berakot 35b) The Germara here bears this out as well: R Shimon stayed in the cave another year and emerged with a change of heart.

The Angel

• Ilpha and R. Johanan studied Torah. They were very pressed. They said: "Let's go and do some business and fulfill the verse that says [Deut. 15 4]: 'There will be no needy among you'". They went and sat down at the foot of a flimsy wall and were eating. Two angels came. R. Johanan heard one say to the other: "Let's throw this wall down on them and kill them because they are forsaking eternal life and engaging in temporal life." Taanit 21a

The angel's expectation seems to be similar to the original expectation of R Shimon. But Ilpha and R Yohanan weren't forsaking torah study entirely. Rather they were intending to complement a life of Torah study with a livelihood as is obvious from Ilpha's test later on in the story.

At the end of the day the angel didn't hurt them. Although R Johanan returned to the yeshiva, he returned not because he thought that the angel was correct or that Ilpha was wrong but because of other considerations as the Talmud explains further on.

Raba

Returning now to the passage we quoted at the beginning of this study - R Hamnuna's prayer seems less likely to fit into the category of temporal life. But even so, in the three previous cases, we've seen that the Gemara seems to identify with the subject - in this case the subject is R Hamnuna.

Maybe we can understand this based on R Hamnuna's own teaching:

• R Hamnuna said: How many very important laws (of prayer)
  can we learn from these verses of Hannah [Sam:1,13]. And Hannah, spoke in her heart: from this we can learn that one must direct his heart (to the content of the prayer). Only her lips moved: from this we can learn that one who prays must pronounce (the words) with his lips. But her voice could not be heard: from here, it is forbidden to raise one's voice in prayer. And Eli thought she had was drunk: from this, that one who is drunk is not allowed to pray. Berakot 31a

R Hamnuna in his prayers was trying to emulate Hannah.

According to the Gemara Rosh Hashana 18a Abaye and Raba were descendents of Eli. (The current Gemaras have Rabbah and Abaye instead of Abaye and Raba but the manuscripts (see Diduke Sofrim) all have Abaye and Raba. See Reuven Margoliot (Mehqrim bedarke hatalmud whidotaw p.96) who demonstrates that the manuscripts are correct.)

In other words while R Hamnuna was emulating Hanna, Raba, a descendent of Eli, was sort of imitating Eli. It's no wonder that we'll identify with R Hamnuna.

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.