כ״ח בניסן ה׳תשע״ח (April 13, 2018)

Horayot 14a-b: Mount Sinai or an Uprooter of Mountains?

On yesterday’s daf we learned of the differences of opinion between Rabban Shimon ben Gamliel on the one hand and Rabbi Meir and Rabbi Natan on the other hand. The Beit Shmuel explains that the following discussion in the Gemara offers some background to their disagreement.

Rabbi Yoḥanan taught: On the following point there is a difference of opinion between Rabbi Shimon ben Gamliel and . One view is that “Sinai” – a well-read scholar – is superior to an “oker harim,” literally “one who uproots mountains,” i.e. a sharp dialectician and the other view is that the sharp dialectician is superior.  Rav Yosef was a well-read scholar; Rabba was a sharp dialectician. A question was sent up to the scholars in Israel: Who of these should take precedence? They sent them word in reply: ‘A well-read scholar is to take precedence’; for the Master said, ‘All are dependent on the owner of the wheat’.

The Gemara continues and says that Rav Yosef, nevertheless, did not accept office so Rabba headed the for twenty-two years and only after this period did Rav Yosef take up the office. Out of respect for Rabba, Rav Yosef did not allow the doctor to visit him at home during this period.

According to the Beit Shmuel, Rabban Shimon ben Gamliel was a sharp dialectician but did not have great erudition, which is why Rabbi Meir and Rabbi Natan’s attempted coup was based on the assumption that he would not be able to teach Massekhet Uktzin. Rabban Shimon clearly believed that his analytical abilities made him the appropriate choice to head the .

The idea that ‘All are dependent on the owner of the wheat’ is explained by Rashi as meaning that ultimately the basic knowledge of Mishna and the final legal rulings are what is essential. The Meiri explains that even without keen abilities of analysis, someone with a breadth of knowledge will be able to compare and contrast different legal rulings, while the dialectician is more likely to err based on his reasoning, and will not be familiar enough with precedent to be certain that he is correct.