BAVA KAMA 117A-B RAV KAHANAH AND REBBI YOCHANAN: NEUTRALIZING EXILE, NEUTRALIZING DEATH
THE CONTEXT:
Halacha prohibits Jews in the Diasporafrom violating the laws of the land that are equitable, i.e., that pertainequally to Jews and to Gentiles. Samuel, a leading third century Amora whoheaded the major Academy of Pumpedita, enunciated this principal in a tersedictum: Dina d'malchuta dina, "The law ofthe land is law [i.e., halachically binding upon all Jews]". Many gentilelaws, however, were prejudicial against Jews,and therefore, according to Samuel's principle,were not halachicallybinding.
Furthermore, even when a Jew was inviolation of an equitable law, Halacha strictly enjoined any other Jew frominforming the secular government of the violator's behavior. Due to theprecarious position of Jewish communities in the lands of their exile, the actof informing against even one Jewish violator could place a whole community orcommunities at serious risk, exposing them to libels, expulsions and evenpogroms. Jewish leadership therefore punished informers in a manner that wasexceptionally severe. The Halacha even allowed the court to silence theinformer by means of assassination, when necessary.*
THE TEXT:
A certain man desired to show [thesecular government] another man's straw [i.e., incriminating contraband]. Thepotential accuser appeared before Rav, who commanded him: "Don't show it!Don't show it!" [I.e., "Halacha enjoins you from revealing thisevidence to the secular authorities!"] He retorted: "[Despite yourinjunction], I will show it! I will show it!"
R. Kahana was at that time sitting beforeRav, and he [immediately attacked the man, killing him by] tearing out hiswindpipe. [Upon viewing what had occurred, Rav justified R. Kahana's violentaction by] quoting the following verse [Isaiah 51:20]: "Your sons havefainted, they lie at the heads of all the streets as a wild bull in anet." Just as when a wild bull falls into a net, no one has mercy upon it,so with the property of an Israelite, as soon as it falls into the hands ofheathen oppressors no mercy is exercised towards it."
Rav thereupon said to him: "Kahana,until recently the Greeks, were here and held sway, and they did not take muchnotice of [internal Jewish conflicts resulting in] bloodshed. Now, however, thePersians, who are particular regarding conflicts resulting in bloodshed, arehere, and they will certainly [exploit this incident as a pretext for] saying'Murder, murder!'" Arise, therefore, and [escape by] going up to the Landof Israel [and continue your advanced Torah studies at the Academy of R. Yochanan];but commit yourself to refrain from criticizing any point made by of R.Yochanan for the next seven years!"
When [R. Kahana] arrived at R. Yochanan'sacademy [in the Land of Israel], he found Resh Lakish reviewing R. Yochanan'slecture with [the younger] Rabbis. [After listening to the review, followingwhich Resh Lakish left the immediate area], R. Kahana asked the students:"Where is Resh Lakish?" They said to him: "Why do you ask?"He replied: "This point [in the lecture] is difficult and that point isdifficult, but this could be given as an answer and that could be given as ananswer."
When they mentioned this to Resh Lakish,Resh Lakish went and said to R. Yochanan, "A lion has come up fromBabylon; let the Master therefore look very carefully into tomorrow's lecture.”On the morrow, they seated R. Kahana in the first row of disciples before R.Yochanan. R. Yochanan proceeded to make a statement, yet R’ Kahana did notchallenge the statement, nor did he raise any difficulties with R. Yochanan’ssubsequent analyses. The administrators interpreted R’ Kahana’s passivity as anindicating a significantly inferior level of scholarship. Therefore, with eachfailure to respond, they re-assigned R. Kahana’s seat one row behind hispresent one, until he had gone back through all seven rows, and remained seatedin the very last row. R. Yochanan thereupon said to Resh Lakish, "The lionyou mentioned turns out to be a [mere] fox!"
R. Kahana thereupon whispered [inprayer]: "May it be Your will that [the embarrassment I have endured bytheir removing me back these seven rows be in the place of the seven yearsregarding which Rav commanded me to withhold questions!" He then stood upand said to R. Yochanan, “Will the Master please start the lecture again fromthe beginning?” [R. Yochanan recommenced the lecture.] As soon as the lattermade [his first statement on a matter of law], R. Kahana pointed out adifficulty; and so also with all of R. Yochanan's subsequent statements of law.As a result, they placed R. Kahana back in the first row. R. Yochanan wassitting upon seven cushions. Whenever he continued to make a statement againstwhich [R. Kahana] raised a difficulty, they pulled out one cushion from underhim, [and so this process continued] until all the cushions were pulled outfrom under [R. Yochanan] and he remained seated upon the ground.
Since R. Yochanan was then very old andhis eyelids were [blocking his sight], he said to his servants, "Raise myeyelids, as I want to see this man!" They lifted up his eyelids withsilver pincers. He saw that R. Kahana's lips were parted and concluded[incorrectly] that the latter was disdainfully laughing at him. He feltaggrieved and, in consequence, the soul of R. Kahana went to rest [i.e., hedied].
On the next day R. Yochanan said to ourRabbis, "Have you noticed how the Babylonian was making [a laughing-stockof us]?" But they said to him, "This [the formation of his lips] washis natural appearance!"
R. Yochanan thereupon went to the cave[where R. Kahana's lay buried] and saw a snake coiled round it. He said,“Snake, snake, open your mouth and allow the Master to enter [and bewith]the disciple!” But the snake did not open its mouth. He then said, “[Allow] thecolleague to enter to [be with his] associate!” Nevertheless, it still did notopen [its mouth, until he said], “Permit the disciple to enter to be with hisMaster!” at which time the snake did open its mouth. He then prayed for mercyand raised [R. Kahana from the dead].
[R. Yochanan then] said to [R. Kahana],“Had I known that the natural [facial] appearance of the Master was such, Ishould never have taken offence. Now, therefore let the Master [leave the caveand] accompany us [back] to the academy.” He replied, “If you are able to prayfor mercy that I should never die again [as a punishment for causing you anyannoyance], I will go with you, but if not I am not prepared to go with you.For later on you might once change [your attitude towards me].” R. Yochanan[agreed, and] thereupon completely awakened and restored him. [At the academy,he would consult with R. Kahana on doubtful points [of Jewish Law], and thelatter would resolve these doubts for him.
This foregoing incident makesunderstandable R. Yochanan's statement to his students], “[The profound andextensive knowledge of Torah that] I had believed to be yours [i.e., to be theproduct of this indigenous culture] is fact theirs [a product of the scholarshipdeveloped in the academies of Babylon]!”
ANALYSIS
First, a few general insights:
This narrative is somewhat analogous tothe one in Chullin 95b, where R. Yochanan, in correspondence with theBabylonian leader Shmuel, initially snubs him, and then, upon discovering thatShmuel’s scholarship is superior to his own, manifests great respect for him.**
A significant sub-theme of the story isthe issue of ego-vulnerability - especially on the part of the Master-teachervis-a-vis other brilliant scholars. In this narrative, R. Yochanan overcomeshis wounded ego immediately upon learning that R. Kahana was not mocking him,as he had initially assumed. R. Yochanan readily acknowledges R. Kahana’ssuperiority as a scholar. His ego-concerns are secondary to his love oflearning and his reverence for true scholars and scholarship.This story is another illustration of the power of Amora'im to revive the dead.The narrative also illustrates the power of an offended tsaddik to cause thedeath of his offender simply by virtue of his having been offended.******************************************************************The narrative begins with R’ Kahana killing a person who has revealed to himthat he intends to inform to the Gentile government against another Jew. R’Kahana kills the potential informer only after the latter overtly spurns hiswarning him not to inform. Because of this incident, Rav orders him to escapethe potential sanctions of the Babylonian government and go into “exile” –ironically, to the Land of Israel.
A number of paradoxes are manifesthere.
[1] The first one, to which we justalluded, is that leaving Babylon for Eretz Yisrael is characterized as “exile”.The reason becomes evident by the end of the narrative: The superiority ofTorah scholarship in the Babylonian yeshivos endow them with sanctity superiorto the sanctity of those in Eretz Yisrael. In the perceptions of thesescholars, geography – at least in time present – is not destiny: The followingTalmudic statements assert this point:
Talmud Megillah 29aואהי להםלמקדש מעט, אמר רבי יצחק: אלו בתי כנסיות ובתי מדרשות שבבבלורביאלעזר אמר: זה בית רבינו שבבבל.רש"ימסכת מגילה דף כט עמוד אביתרבינו - רב..The verse states: “Yet I have been to them as a little sanctuaryin the countries where they have come” (Ezekiel 11:16). Rabbi Yitzḥak said:This is referring to the synagogues and study halls in Babylonia.
*And Rabbi Elazar said: This is referringto the house of our master in Babylonia, from which Torah issues forth to theentire world.*Rashi s.v., the house of our master:[namely,]Rav
The foregoing passage reinforces theidea that leaving the study halls of Babylon – and precisely , leaving theacademy of Rav – constitutes exile, even if one is headed for Eretz Yisrael.***
[3] Another, more fundamental paradox:The Jews in Babylon - and in exile generally - find themselves in a situationof mortal danger from their own government if anyone informs on them to thatgovernment. This reality is operative even if the crime of the person beinginformed upon is one that, according to most legal systems, is far from being acapital offense. Thus, the problem is not only that this “humane” governmentwill persecute someone for killing in self-defense, but also that it hascreated the very situation where innocent Jewish inhabitants must protectthemselves from it. In other words, the government will proceed to persecutesomeone - and possibly that person’s whole community - whose “crime” is merelyillegal possession of a certain type of wool. Yet, probably with more than atouch of sarcasm, Rav characterizes this government as being “moral”! Thedanger that the informer generates reflects the tenuous and hostile nature ofexilic life where Jews are dependent for their survival upon the whimsical andinequitable policies of the host society.
The tax on this material may have beenequitable or may have been only against the Jews. In the latter case, theHalacha of Dina d’malchusa dina – “The law of the land possesses the authorityof halacha” - would be deemed prejudicial and therefore would not be in effect.However, even if the law prohibiting possession of the material was equitable,i.e., illegal for Jew and gentile alike, that violation should not havewarranted capital punishment, catalyzing mortal danger to the possessor andpossibly even to the entire community. Yet, this was the nature of the exilicreality for the Jews in Babylon. Nevertheless, this environment producdscholars on the level of Rav, Shmuel, and R. Kahana, the last of which, as thenarrative proceeds to illustrate, was even superior to that of the greatPalestinian Amora, R. Yochanan.
Perhaps this irony is the central pointof the narrative. The story may be suggesting that it is precisely thedifficulties and the precariousness of Jewish existence in exile that providesthe context for superior scholarship! In other words, perhaps counter-intuitively,there exists a causal nexus between homelessness and vulnerability, on onehand, and outstanding scholarship, on the other.
To be more precise: If we were to graphthe relationship between Torah scholarship and the amount of negativity andtension in the environment, the result may look similar to a bell-curve.Fertile ground for Torah scholarship will not exist in surroundings of extremetranquility and comfort, on one hand, and extreme negativity and tension(Jew-hatred, persecution) on the other. The former situation presents too manymaterialistic-hedonistic distractions, while the latter denies the individualthe autonomous time which serious scholarship demands. Between these twoextremes, a certain amount of environmental tension and vulnerability, plusdistance from the Holy Land, will lend itself to growth in Torah knowledge.Perhaps this is because distancing from the Divine Presence (the Shechina)catalyzes a yearning to find that Presence in Torah. “From the day that theTemple was destroyed, God has no place in which to dwell other than the fourcubits of halacha.”***
At the end of the narrative, R.Yochanan attests to the superiority not only of R. Kahana’s learning, but alsoof Babylonian scholarship in general. Furthermore, he asserts that thescholarship in Israel is indebted to that of the Babylonian scholars.
An ongoing theme in this narrative isthe theme of death, or more specifically, the vulnerability of life.
• The potential informer threatens thelife of the person who is in possession of the contraband straw.• R. Kahana kills the potential informer because it is the only means toprevent him from informing.• R. Yochanan causes the death of R. Kahana after misinterpreting his facialexpression as expressing mockery and disdain towards him.
In addition, the narrative presents twoinstances of public embarrassment, which Rabbinic literature equates withmurder.****
• R. Yochanan embarrasses R. Kahanawhen the latter fails to pose appropriate challenges to his lecture.• R. Kahana (unintentionally) embarrasses R. Yochanan with his facialexpression as described above.
Perhaps the implicit message here isthat we are vulnerable to “the invisible enemy from within” no less than to the“enemy from without.” The latter danger tends to be less insidious than theformer, because it is external and concrete. It usually appears in the form ofan enemy, readily identifiable, and therefore, often avoidable.Possibility of escape exists – as R. Kahana was able to do.
The former danger, in contrast, breedswithin the internal, invisible den of the ego, in the chamber of woundedfeelings and of low self-esteem. It is invisible, intangible, and is thus ableto damage at any moment, without notice - indeed, at times,even without thevictim'simmediate awareness. The damage it causes affects not only the intendedvictim, i.e., the offended party, but also anyone who may have witnessed thehurtful event. Both enemies kill. In the present instance, the offended party(R. Yochanan) responds by murdering his “victimizer". Once he realizesthat R. Kahana actually had intended no offense, he attempts,successfully, to revive his victim. The metaphor here is clear. Although publicembarrassment is like murder, as we noted above, reconciliation (i.e., revivingthe dead) remains possible through the following two acts on the part of thevictimizer:
- Apologizing to the victim; and2. Neutralizing publicly the negative impact of the embarrassing act
Of course, there exists a thirdpre-condition – this one on the part of the victim:
- Willingness to allow the victimizerto revive him; to reconcile, even at the risk of possibly enduring the pain andtrauma of that victimizer murdering him once again in the future
From a literary perspective, a cleardivide exists between the Babylonian scene, which the sugya presents in arealistic vein, and the Palestinian scene, which possesses dream-like, magicaland hyperbolic qualities. The reader is hard put to imagine the Yeshiva’sadministration publicly embarrassing R. Kahana – seven times in a row! – bymoving back his seat each time he remains silent and chooses not to interruptand criticize a point that R. Yochanan makes in a public lecture. It is evenmore difficult to assume, realistically, that they would insult their venerableteacher, R. Yochanan, considered the most outstanding Palestinian scholaralive, by removing cushions from under him with every one of R. Kahana’ssubsequent challenges to his lecture.
Even more unreal are:
[1] the power of R. Yochanan’s hurtfeelings to cause R. Kahana’s death;*****
[2] the cave image, with the serpentclearly acting as a messenger of God;
[3] the conversation with the dead R.Kahana, and
[4] R. Yochanan’s ability to restorehim to life.
If the Palestinian section of thenarrative is a literary trope, we must consider what the narrator sought toachieve through this transformation from the world of realism to the world ofthe hyperbolic and the miraculous. Perhaps the intention is to externalize andconcretize – and thus to make dramatically real - the power and significance ofthe insidious demons: ego-vulnerability, of wounded feelings.
Alternatively, we may certainly allowfor the possibility that these miraculous events actually occurred. If this isthe case, we must attempt to understand - if only as reverential speculatorsattempting to comprehend even a tiny aspect of Hashem’s ways - as to why thisevent warranted such overt miraculous activity on Heaven’s part, and why theacademy would publically embarrass R. Kahana, as well as their own reveredleader, with such overt harshness.
*The following laws from Maimonides’ Code of Jewish Law are clearly informed byour Talmudic passage:
Hilchos Chovel u’Mazik 8:9-10It is forbidden to inform about a colleague to the gentiles and endanger hisphysical person or his property. This applies even when the person concerned isa wicked person who commits sins, and even if he causes one irritation anddiscomfort. Anyone who actually informs about a Jew and endangers his person orhis property to the gentiles will not receive a portion in the world to come.
טאָסוּרלִמְסֹר הָאָדָם בְּיַד עַכּוּ''ם בֵּין בְּגוּפוֹ בֵּין בְּמָמוֹנוֹ. וַאֲפִלּוּהָיָה רָשָׁע וּבַעַל עֲבֵרוֹת וַאֲפִלּוּ הָיָה מֵצֵר לוֹ וּמְצַעֲרוֹ. וְכָלהַמּוֹסְרוֹ בְּיַד עַכּוּ''ם בֵּין בְּגוּפוֹ בֵּין בְּמָמוֹנוֹ אֵין לוֹ חֵלֶקלָעוֹלָם הַבָּא:
10It is permissible to kill an informer in any country, even in the present age,when the court no longer metes out capital punishment.
It is permitted to kill him before heinforms. When he says: "I will inform on so and so and endanger his personand/or his property" - even property of minimal value - he has made itpermissible for others to kill him.
He should be warned and told: "Donot inform." If he says brazenly, "No. I will inform about him,"it is a mitzvah to kill him, and whoever kills him receives merit.
ימֻתָּרלַהֲרֹג הַמּוֹסֵר בְּכָל מָקוֹם וַאֲפִלּוּ בַּזְּמַן הַזֶּה שֶׁאֵין דָּנִיןדִּינֵי נְפָשׁוֹת. וּמֻתָּר לְהָרְגוֹ קֹדֶם שֶׁיִּמְסֹר אֶלָּא כְּשֶׁאָמַרהֲרֵינִי מוֹסֵר פְּלוֹנִי בְּגוּפוֹ אוֹ בְּמָמוֹנוֹ. וַאֲפִלּוּ מָמוֹן קַלהִתִּיר עַצְמוֹ לְמִיתָה. וּמַתְרִין לוֹ וְאוֹמְרִין לוֹ אַל תִּמְסֹר. אִםהֵעֵז פָּנָיו וְאָמַר לֹא כִּי אֶלָּא אֶמְסְרֶנּוּ מִצְוָה לְהָרְגוֹ וְכָלהַקּוֹדֵם לְהָרְגוֹ זָכָה:
**[See my analysis of that sugya entitled, “Rav Yochanan and Shemuel: anEpistolary Confrontation” under “Stories in the Talmud”. ]
***AVOS 3:6Rabbi Halafta of Kefar Hanania said: when ten sit together and occupythemselves with Torah, the Shechinah abides among them, as it is said: “Godstands in the congregation of God” (Psalm 82:1). How do we know that the sameis true even of five? As it is said: “This band of His He has established onearth” (Amos 9:6). How do we know that the same is true even of three? As it issaid: “In the midst of the judges He judges” (Psalm 82:1) How do we know thatthe same is true even of two? As it is said: “Then they that fear the Lordspoke one with another, and the Lord hearkened, and heard” (Malachi 3:16). Howdo we know that the same is true even of one? As it is said: “In every placewhere I cause my name to be mentioned I will come unto you and bless you”(Exodus 20:21).
Avos 4:14Rabbi Nehorai said: go as a [voluntary] exile to a place of Torah and say notthat it will come after you, for [it is] your fellow [student]s who will makeit permanent in your hand and “and lean not upon your own understanding”(Proverbs 3:5).תלמודבבלי מסכת ברכות דף ח עמוד אאמר רבחסדא: מאי דכתיב אהב ה' שערי ציון מכל משכנות יעקב - אוהב ה' שערים המצוייניםבהלכה יותר מבתי כנסיות ומבתי מדרשותוהיינודאמר רבי חייא בר אמי משמיה דעולא: מיום שחרב בית המקדש אין לו להקדוש ברוך הואבעולמו אלא ארבע אמות של הלכה בלבד. ת
****תלמודבבלי מסכת בבא מציעא דף נח עמוד בתני תנאקמיה דרב נחמן בר יצחק: כל המלבין פני חבירו ברבים כאילו שופך דמים.Whoever embarrasses a person publicly is considered as if he had murdered him[literally: spilled his blood].
***** the Talmud records a fewinstances of Tannaim and Amoraim killing through stares of negativity andreviving the dead. See Megillah 7b, (where Rabba revives R. Zeira after havingkilled him when intoxicated); Shabbat 33b (R. Shimon bar Yochai and his son R.Elazar); Bava Metzia 54a (R. Yochanan and Raysh Lakish).