Ten Minutes of Talmud #166: Death and Legacy -- Rabbi Amy Scheinerman

It happened that as R. Eliezer lay dying on the eve of Shabbat at dusk, his son Hyrcanus went in to remove his tefillin. [R. Eliezer] said to him, “My son, you have set aside the lighting of the [shabbat] lamp, which is prohibited [once shabbat has begun] under the category of sh’vut and for which one is punishable by karet (excision), yet you come to remove [my] tefillin, which is reshut (discretionary) and only a  mitzvah.” [Hyrcanus] left [the room] and cried out, “Woe is me, for my father’s mind has become confused!” [R. Eliezer] said to him, “It is your mind that is confused; my mind is not confused.” When his disciples saw that [R. Eliezer’s] had responded with wisdom, they went in to him and began questioning him and he answered them. He told them what was ritually impure was impure, and what was ritually pure was pure. With his last utterance of “pure,” his soul departed. They said, “This demonstrates that our Master was pure.” R. Mana declared, “Is it then only now that it is known?” R. Yehoshua went in and removed [R. Eliezer’s] tefillin. He embraced him and kissed him and wept, saying, “My teacher, my teacher, the vow [of excommunication] is annulled. My teacher, chariot of Israel and its horsemen (2 Kings 2:12).” (Jerusalem Talmud, tractate Shabbat 2:7, 5b)

INTRODUCTION

R. Eliezer b. Hyrcanus was one of the foremost disciples of Rabban Yochanan b. Zakkai, who compared the mind of his student to a “plastered cistern” that neved loses a drop (Pirkei Avot 2:8). While both the Babylonian and Jerusalem Talmuds include narratives of his death, the Bavli version is better known. The Yerushalmi version, above, is likely earlier and served as the basis of the Bavli’s expanded version. 

Not clearly articulated, but underlying the drama, is that some years earlier, R. Eliezer was excommunicated by his colleagues (BT Baba Metzia 59b). The incident was sparked by a disagreement concerning the purity of an oven. R. Eliezer refused to accede to the majority view, maintaining that his view alone was valid. The longing of his colleagues to find a means for mending the rift in order to annul his excision prior to his death is implicit in this account of his final day. For that to happen, R. Eliezer must express halakhic opinions that comport with the majority view of the Rabbis.

COMMENTARY

The temporal setting of our story—late Friday afternoon—introduces halakhic complications. Tefillin are worn throughout the day, but not on shabbat; hence R. Eliezer’s son, Hyrcanus, wants to remove his father’s tefillin prior to sundown. R. Eliezer objects, distinguishing between two categories of shabbat prohibitions: Sh’vut (rest), mi-de-rabbanan (rabbinic) prohibitions that pertain to shabbat and festivals are intended to prevent violation of Toraitic prohibitions, or enhance the sanctity of the day; sh’vut would be violated by removing tefillin once shabbat commences. Lighting the lamps after shabbat has begun violates a biblical prohibition (mi d’oraita) against lighting fire on shabbat, carrying the far graver penalty of karet (excision), cut off forever from God and community. R. Eliezer criticizes his son’s misplaced priorities: Hyrcanus should be more concerned about lighting the lamps on time (not after Shabbat commences) because failure to do so is a far greater violation than removing tefillin once shabbat commences. 

Hyrcanus leaves the room, reporting that his father’s thinking is confused, but R. Eliezer retorts that Hyrcanus is the one whose thinking is awry. R. Eliezer’s colleagues, likely in an adjoining room due to the prevailing ban of excommunication, overhear the exchange and recognize that R. Eliezer’s halakhic reasoning is astute. This affords an opening to question him further on matters of purity—the general halakhic category that led to R. Eliezer’s excommunication. Satisfied that his current opinions align with those of the Sages, they find warrant to lift the ban of excommunication prior to R. Eliezer’s passing, literarily echoed by noting that his soul departed at the utterance of “pure.” R. Eliezer’s closest colleague and rival, R. Yehoshua b. Chananiah, then  enters and removes his tefillin. 

The story’s ending is complex. It closes on several dramatic and emotional notes with implications for R. Eliezer’s status, the arrival of shabbat, and the precise moment of R. Eliezer’s death: (1) The Rabbis declare R. Eliezer “pure”—meaning the ban is lifted. (2) R. Yehoshua removes R. Eliezer’s tefillin. (3) R. Yehoshua embraces R. Eliezer and utters words evocative of the prophet Elijah: when Elijah is taken to heaven in a chariot, Elisha describes him as “Chariot of Israel and its horsemen” (2 Kings 2:12). However, where Elisha speaks of Elijah as “my father, my father,” R. Yehoshua addresses R. Eliezer as, “my teacher, my teacher,” the appellation of greatest honor a sage could be accorded.

QUESTIONS TO CONSIDER AND DISCUSS

1. The ending of the story is enigmatic. Is R. Eliezer still alive when R. Yehoshua removes his tefillin? Do you think R. Eliezer is reinstated prior to sundown, or do you think the story suggests that an exception is made to the general rule in this case, and the ban is lifted on shabbat?
2. Although not explicitly stated, the story hints that perhaps the sun has set and R. Yehoshua violates a sh’vut prohibition when he removes R. Eliezer’s tefillin, which R. Eliezer explicitly noted was preferable to violating a biblical prohibition, if a choice must be made. What do you think happened? Why do you think the story is told this way?
3. Given that R. Yehoshua’s words echo those of Elisha uttered to Elijah as he was leaving this world—still alive and not dying—is the story drawing a parallel between R. Eliezer and Elijah? How do R. Yehoshua’s words secure R. Eliezer’s legacy among his colleagues? What words have you used to help secure someone’s legacy? What words would you wish used to fix your legacy?