The Debauched Rabbi 348

3.5.8.1 The Rabbinic debate over Torah study and marriage is quite extensive. There is also a
concern that a scholars disgraceful and uncontrolled passion might make him a slave to his wifes
control, 349 resulting in the loss of his disciplined Torah learning. The following midrash in
Ecclesiastes Rabbah expresses the anxiety sages felt about the dangers of conjugal relations and the
need for scholars to study together apart from their wives. Unfortunately, one might never know it
from the standard translations and traditional Rabbinic commentaries.
3.5.8.2 Here is the standard translation from The Soncino Midrash Rabbah. It follows the Hebrew
text of the printed editions, which is fairly close to the readings of best manuscripts.
Ecclesiastes Rabbah 7:14-15, 350 SURELY OPPRESSION TURNETH A WISE MAN INTO A
FOOL AND A GIFT DESTROYETH THE UNDERSTANDING (VII, 7).... Who is a disciple of
the Sages? R. Abbahu said in the name of R. Johanan: Whoever neglects his personal affairs for his
study. It has been learnt: [He is a disciple of the Sages] who when questioned about any halachah
from his repertory is able to answer. R. Johanan b. Zakkai had five disciples, and as long as he lived
they sat before him. When he died, they went to Jabneh. (Editors note: Where their master had
established an Academy after the destruction of Jerusalem.) R. Eleazar b. Arach, however, joined his
wife at Emmaus (Editors note: A town on the road between Jerusalem and Jaffa), a place of good
water and beautiful aspect. He waited for them to come to him, but they did not come. As they
failed to do so, he wanted to go to them, but his wife did not let him. She said, Who needs whom?
He answered, They need me. She said to him, In the case of a vessel [containing food] and mice,
which goes to which? Do the mice go to the vessel or does the vessel come to the mice? He listened
to her and remained there until he forgot his learning. After a while, they came to him and asked,
Which is better to eat along with a relish, wheaten-bread or barley-bread? but he was unable to
answer. R. Eliezer and R. Jose say: [By relish is to be understood] two articles of food combined
together. (Editors note: The anecdote demonstrates that the dispute between R. Eleazar and his
wife turned a wise man into a fool. E.J. gives an involved but nevertheless plausible explanation
showing that they asked him a question of law, not of mere taste.)
3.5.8.3 This midrash is a literary creation presented in a cryptic, enigmatic style. As will become
evident in the analysis below, the current version should be considered merely an outline of the
original sermon. When presented to a live audience, the homilist presumably filled in the gaps, the
allusions and metaphors which are not explicit in the barebones form preserved in Ecclesiastes
348

Excerpted with slight revisions from Dennis Beck-Berman, Embody the Divine: Tractate AvotTeachings of the
Eminent Forefathers. A Critical Edition of Mishnah Tractate Avot, Based on Mishnah Codex Kaufmann and Other Ancient
Witnesses, with an Introduction, Translation, and Comprehensive Commentary. Complete references to works mentioned in
the notes below appear in the Bibliography of Embody the Divine.
349

See Satlow, Tasting the Dish, 158-169. Compare Naeh, Freedom And Celibacy. For an analysis of an ancient
Jewish views on the dangers of unbridled male and female sexual desire, see Loader, The Pseudepigrapha on Sexuality,
497-505. On the Jewish use of the Greco-Roman motif of the idealized male impervious to sexual desire and able to
resist female licentiousness, see Levinson, An-Other Woman: Joseph and Potiphars Wife; Levinson, Cultural
Androgyny in Rabbinic Literature; Schofer, The Making of a Sage, 108-111. For the sage, true valor is demonstrated by
overcoming lust. See Philo, The Life of Moses, 1:25-29; Philo, Hypothetica, 8:11:14-17 (edition Colson, 9:442-443); note
11 to Avot 4:1, Which one is mighty? The one who subdues his designing (passions).
350

In some printed editions, the comment on Ecclesiastes 7:7 appears in chapter 7 sections 14-15.

Rabbah.351 Like much of classical Rabbinic literature, the text often seems incomprehensible without
an abundance of accompanying annotations and commentary. This homily probably comes from the
Rabbinic schoolhouses of Late Antiquity and was produced by scholars for other sages or rabbinic
students.352
3.5.8.4 The most problematic feature of the standard translation above is that it ignores anything
problematic. How does the story relate to the homilists interpretation of the verse in Ecclesiastes?
What is the significance of the references to mice/vessels and bread/relish? Moreover, what is the
main point of the story? According to the Soncino rendering, a famous rabbi foolishly and
stubbornly separates from his colleagues, who finally visit him after he inexplicably forgets his
learning and ask him a silly culinary query. What important lesson does this vapid, seemingly trivial
tradition teach its readers, who are presumably Rabbinic scholars? Ironically, the translator does note
an involved but plausible explanation which shows that they asked him a question about Jewish law,
but does not realize its significance here.
3.5.8.5 In formulating a productive methodological approach to address these issues, the
observation of Morton Smith is instructive:
History is like a midrashic text, the ascertainable facts being the words. To record merely
the ascertainable facts is like translating a midrash word by wordeach word of the text will
be correctly recorded, but almost nobody will see the connections, the whole will be
incomprehensible. If you want to make sense of the midrash you must produce an
interpretive translation which explains how the commentators go from the Biblical words to
their conclusions, explains, that is, the connections of the elements. Similarly if you want to
produce a comprehensible history you must attempt to explain the connections of the
ascertainable facts and make clear how one led to another. But these connectionshistoric
and midrashic alikeare not stated, they have to be inferred, that is, conjectured. And the
conjectures may be wrong. So any correct translation or any true history must be
conjectured. If conjectural, it may be false, but if not conjectural it must be false.353
3.5.8.6 Before attempting to make sense of this midrash, it will be necessary to provide a more
accurate rendering.
Ecclesiastes Rabbah 7:7,354 (Interpreting Ecclesiastes 7:7, For debauchery will rob the sage of reason
and cause loss of memory by idleness/dissoluteness.) Which one is a scholarly disciple? Whomever they
(scholars) ask (a question) about his mishnah (learning) and he (knowledgeably) responds to it. (A
351

See Fraade, From Tradition to Commentary.

352

See Porten, Midrash and the Rabbinic Sermon; Porten, Midrash, Definitions of; Sternberger, The Derashah in
Rabbinic Times.
353

Cited by Braude, Conjecture and Interpolation in Translating Rabbinic Texts, 77. Compare Kuhn, The Essential
Tension, Preface, xii: When reading the works of an important thinker, look first for the apparent absurdities in the text
and ask yourself how a sensible person could have written them. When you find an answer ... when those passages make
sense, then you may find that more central passages, ones you previously thought you understood, have changed their
meaning. See also Kuhn, Notes on Lakatos.
354

Ecclesiastes Rabbah 7:7, following Manuscript Vatican 291.11, with a few minor corrections from a Genizah
fragment Cambridge (Taylor-Schechter Collection C 1.14) and Manuscript Oxford (Bodleian Library [Archive of John
Selden A Supra 102; Oriental Catalogue of John Uri 154]). The parallels are cited in note 360 above.

story about) Rabbi Elazar son of Arakh, (one of the five disciples of Rabban Yochanan son of
Zakkai). The whole time he (Rabban Yochanan) was alive (qayyam), (the disciples) would be sitting
(diligently learning)355 in his presence. When he passed away, they went to Yavneh, but Rabbi
Elazar son of Arakh went to join his wife in Emmaus, a place of beneficial waters and splendid
beauty. He waited for them (the disciples) to come join him, but they did not come. He requested
(permission from his wife) to go join them (in Yavneh), but she did not let him. She said: Who
needs whom? He said (arrogantly): They need me. (She asked rhetorically:) A leather bag and mice:
Whose (normal) way is it to go to the thing which it seeks? The mice over to the leather bag, or the
bag over to the mice? He listened to her and he sat around (idly)356 until (consequently) he forgot
his (powers of dialectical) analysis (of Rabbinic legal traditions) (talmudo). After a while, they came
to him. They asked (him to explain a Rabbinic legal tradition): A half-loaf of wheat bread, but not a
half-loaf of barley bread, reclining and eating it with a relish. But he did not know how to respond.
(What is the meaning of) with a relish? Rabbi Elazar and Rabbi Yose said: (It means) two hors
doeuvres (served) beside each other.
3.5.8.7 Now let us examine its literary elements and analyze its deeper meaning.
(1) The homiletical exegesis of the verse. Ecclesiastes 7:7 is usually rendered: For
cheating/oppression makes a sage foolish and a bribe/gift corrupts/destroys his heart (morals). Apparently
the homilist renders the verse For debauchery makes a sage foolish and idleness/dissoluteness destroys his
memory. Hebrew osheq, oppression, is homiletically read as eshekh, testicle, a metonym for
libido, taken in an extended sense of debauchery. Compare the English slang nuts for testicles
and the expression nuts about. This exegesis is reflected in the incongruous leather bag in the
story, an allusion to testicles. Indeed, money bags in ancient Rome would be made from the skin of
rams testicles.357 Note that money, like water, is a common metaphor for knowledge of Torah.358 So
there may also be a wordplay in which an empty leather bag symbolizes a sage who has forgotten his
Torah scholarship and hence his manliness.359 Hebrew lev, mind/heart, can also have the sense of
memory.360 And Hebrew mattanah, bribe/gift, also means idleness.361 The homilist probably
treats mattanah like battalah and havtalah, which mean both idleness and dissoluteness.362
(2) Which one is a scholarly disciple? This question connects chakham, sage, wise one, in the
Biblical verse with the Rabbinic sage. Manuscript Oxford363 and the current printed editions364 read:

355

On sitting (diligently learning), see note 751 to Excursus F.

356

This seems to be the force of yb lw, yashav lo. See note 561 to Avot 3:8. It is likely that he sat around (idly) is
deliberately contrasted with his former studiousness. See note 300 above on he would sit (diligently learning).
357

See Carruthers, The Book of Memory, 174.

358

See Excursus B 6.8.4.

359

Compare Jaffee, Gender and Otherness in Rabbinic Oral Culture.

360

Compare the expression erasing Torah from ones mind/heart in Avot 3:8.

361

See note 25 to Avot 1:1b.

362

See note 465 to Avot 3:4.

363

Manuscript Oxford (Bodleian Library [Archive of John Selden A Supra 102; Oriental Catalogue of John Uri 154]).

364

An interpolation has entered the current printed editions of Ecclesiastes Rabbah from Palestinian Talmud Moed
Qatan 3:7 (edition Venice, 83b; edition Sussmann, 820),Which one is a scholarly disciple? ... Rabbi Abbahu in the
name of Rabbi Yochanan (said): Whoever curtails his business on account of his mishnah (rehearsal). It is learned (in a

talmid chakham(im). All other early witnesses, including the first printed edition (Constantinople,
1512), read: talmid, presumably short for talmid chakhamim. The popular Hebrew expression talmid
chakham is a corruption of talmid chakhamim, which should properly be rendered scholarly
disciple.365 While a chakham, an ordained sage, was fully empowered to decide on all questions of
law, a talmid chakhamim, a scholarly disciple, could only answer questions on areas he formally
mastered: Whomever they (scholars) ask (a question) about his mishnah (learning) and he
(knowledgeably) responds to it. This transitions into the story about Rabbi Elazar son of Arakh,
one of the five disciples of Rabban Yochanan son of Zakkai, a great sage who ends up unable to
knowledgeably respond to even a simple legal question.
(3) When Rabban Yochanan died, his disciple circle moved to Yavneh, but Rabbi Elazar son of
Arakh went to join his wife in Emmaus,366 a place of beneficial waters and splendid beauty. There
are several clever wordplays in the story on the name of the town. Emmaus, a hellenized form of the
Hebrew chamat, hot springs, mimics both cheimet, (leather/skin) bag, and the Greek/Latin mus,
mouse.367 Presumably, mayyim yafim, beneficial368 waters, refers to the local hot springs,369 and

Tannaitic tradition): Whomever they (scholars) ask (a question) about his mishnah (learning) and he (knowledgeably)
responds to it. Only the final sentence is found in the earliest witnesses and the first printed edition.
365

The common form of the singular talmid chakham is actually a corruption of the original form talmid chakhamim,
literally a disciple of sages, which is preserved in the best manuscript witnesses. See Breuer, The Hebrew in the
Babylonian Talmud According to the Manuscripts of Tractate Pesahim, 236-238; Lieberman, HaYerushalmi Ki-Fshuo,
Introduction, 22-23; Kister, Studies in Avot de-Rabbi Nathan, 257 note 58; Bar-Asher, Introduction to Mishna Codex
Parma B: De Rossi 497, Seder Teharoth, 14-15; Epstein, Review of Siphre zu Deuteroniumherausgegeben von Dr.
Louis Finkelstein, 388; Ginzberg, Students, Scholars and Saints, 267-268 note 5. An exact translation of the Rabbinic
expression, mathts sophn, disciple of the sages, appears on a Jewish Roman epitaph. See Noy, Jewish Inscriptions of
Western Europe, 2:427-428 544; compare 2:325. The corrupted term talmid chakham, literally disciple of a sage, is
usually rendered disciple of the Sages. Yet note the use of the plural chakhamim, sages, in both forms. This often
suggests that the second element has an adjectival sense. Compare Daniel 10:11, ish chamudot, precious/treasured
man; Proverbs 16:28, ish tahpuchot, shifty/treacherous man; Proverbs 10:31, leshon tahpuchot, treacherous/perverse
tongue; Isaiah 50:4, leshon limmudim, skilled/learned tongue. Hence I translate it scholarly disciple(s). While a
chakham, an ordained sage, was fully empowered to decide on all questions of law, a talmid chakhamim, a scholarly
disciple, could only answer questions on areas he had formally mastered. Both terms came to signify learned scholars,
which is the usage in Avot 6:11. See Ginzberg, A Commentary on the Palestinian Talmud, 1:403-408; Ginzberg, The Place
of the Law in the Wisdom of Israel, 16, 38-39; Ginzberg, Students, Scholars and Saints, 35-58 (The Disciple of the
Wise). On the scholar serving as a disciple-apprentice, see note 81 to Avot 6:5. Compare Greek scholastikos, erudite
scholar, a student who has graduated and is ready for specialized legal training. On this term, see Loewe, Rabbi Joshua
ben Hananiah. The monograph by Goldberger, Der Talmid Chacham, collects most Rabbinic traditions on the
scholarly disciple.
366

On the name Emmaus, see Kutscher, Studies in Galilean Aramaic, 93-95.

367

See Levine, The Story of R. Elazar b. Arach, 282-283; Levine, Talmudic Names Wordplay, 54-55.

368

See note 47 to Avot 2:2.

369

See the parallel in Avot deRabbi Natan Version A 14 (edition Schechter, 59; edition Becker, 152-153; all witnesses
basically agree), When they (the disciples) left his presence, he (Rabbi Elazar son of Arakh) said: I shall go to a
beautiful place with beneficial waters. But they said: We shall go to Yavneh, to a place of numerous scholarly disciples
(who) love the Torah. He who went to Emmaus, to a beautiful place with lovely, beneficial waters, his fame/name in
Torah was lessened. They who went to Yavneh, to a place of numerous scholarly disciples and (who) love the Torah,
their fame/name in Torah was magnified. In Manuscript New York (Jewish Theological Seminary, Rabbinic 25), the
original reading was: I shall go to Emmaus, to a beautiful place with beneficial waters, but a later hand erased to
Emmaus and wrote instead: la-dimosot, to the public thermal hot springs, from Greek dmosios, public (institution).

noy yafeh, splendid beauty, to lovely natural scenery or to magnificent urban beauty. This implies
that Rabbi Elazar was also interested in the physical attractions of the place. But the only reason
provided for his relocating to Emmaus is to join his wife. Moreover, these praises of Emmaus
appear superfluous to the story. Since the major physical attraction is his wife, it is likely that the
expression beneficial waters and splendid beauty has a double meaning here: it is an oblique
reference to his gorgeous, voluptuous wife.370 Despite his brilliance, Rabbi Elazar is depicted as a
debauched husband who has succumbed to his wifes charms. The real hot springs of Emmaus are
the seductive charms of his hot wife. But a true sage is devoted first and foremost to disciplined
study of Torah.371 There may be another allusion. In the Greco-Roman world, the emission of
semen, the source of strength and masculinity, by excessive sexual activity would drain a mans
See also Avot deRabbi Natan Version B 29 (edition Schechter, 59; following Manuscript Parma), And on what
account was his fame/name in wisdom (legal dialectical analysis) not magnified? Since as soon as they (the disciples) left
Jerusalem they said: Where shall we go? He who said: I shall go to Emmaus, to a beautiful city whose waters are
beneficial, his fame/name in wisdom (legal dialectical analysis) was not magnified. But they who said: Let us go to
Yavneh, to a place where they love the Torah, to a place of numerous scholarly disciples, their fame/name in wisdom
(legal dialectical analysis) was magnified. On the reading here, see Kister, Studies in Avot de-Rabbi Nathan, 88 and note
44. On wisdom as legal dialectical analysis, see Excursus B 13; note 213 below.
And see Babylonian Talmud Shabbat 147b (following Manuscript Munich 95), Rabbi Elazar son of Arakh
happened to come there (the hot springs of Emmaus). He was attracted to them and his (powers of) dialectical analysis
(of Rabbinic legal traditions) were forgotten/uprooted. When he returned and arose to read in the book (of Torah). He
wished to read (Exodus 12:2), This month shall be unto you (ha-chodesh ha-zeh lakhem)(but) said (instead) deaf was their
heart (ha-cheresh hayah libbam). The scholars sought mercy for him, and his his (powers of) dialectical analysis (of
Rabbinic legal traditions) returned. And this is as we learned (citing Avot 4:14), Rabbi Nehorai says: Be (ever) migrating
to a place of Torah (study), and do not say: She (Torah wisdom) will follow me(meaning) that your companions will
preserve it in your grasp; And do not rely on your own understanding (Proverbs 3:5).
On the ironies and clever puns in this group of legends (including chodesh, month, and chideish, innovate), see
Levine, The Story of R. Elazar b. Arach: The Overflowing Spring, the Emmaus Hot Spring, and Intertextual Irony,
and the secondary literature cited there. In the later version of the story in the Babylonian Talmud, Rabbi Elazar not
only forgets the Oral Torah but even the Written Torah! After enjoying the hot springs he cannot even properly read a
simple well-known verse from the Torah. Like a young child, he confuses Hebrew letters which have similar shapes: dalet
(d) and resh (r), zayin (z) and yod (y), kaf (k) and bet (b). Due to his sexual infatuation he has become confused and
emotional to the point where he cannot think clearly: he lost his head. The motif of forgetfulness as a divine punishment
is classified under Q551.11, Magic forgetfulness as punishment, in the Stith Thompson Motif-Index of Folk-Literature.
See also D2000, Magic forgetfulness. This motif also appears in a story in Palestinian Talmud Yevamot 12:6 (edition
Venice, 13a; edition Sussmann, 889), where the sage Levi son of Sisi is asked several questions, but he did not know
what to respond. He temporarily forgot his prodigious learning when overcome with pride: They made for me a great
stage and seated me upon it and my spirit clapped upon me (struck me dumb). And he recited (a scriptural verse)
concerning him (Proverbs 30:32), If you have been stupid in exalting yourself, or if you have been (deviously) scheming, (clap)
your hand over your mouth (be silent)! Who caused you to be stupid (forgetful) with words of Torah? Since you exalted
yourself with them. See parallels in Babylonian Talmud Yevamot 105a and Genesis Rabbah 81:2 (edition Theodor and
Albeck, 969-972; following Manuscript Vatican 30), They made for me a great stage and seated me above it and my
spirit clapped upon me (struck me dumb) and words of Torah were hidden from me (I had a mental block). On the
expression my spirit clapped upon me, see Lieberman, Concerning the (Book of) Maasim of the Land of Israel, 178.
370

See Proverbs 9:17, Stolen waters are sweet, where waters is a euphemism for intercourse; Waltke, The Book of
Proverbs Chapters 1-15, 316-321, 445-446; Song of Songs 4:15; Goldin, The Song at the Sea, 90, on ein, spring,
maidenhead as a euphemism. See also note 398 above; Ilan, Stolen Water is Sweet; Levine, Marital Relations in
Ancient Judaism, 174-176.
371

Compare Avot 2:2, Disciplined analysis of Torah is beneficial (along) with the way of the world (conjugal
intercourse).

stamina and manliness and make him effeminate.372 As was noted above, money and water are a
common metaphor for knowledge of Torah. Rabbi Elazar, whom Rabban Yochanan son of Zakkai
had praised as an overwhelming/mighty (mitgaber) springendlessly creative and ever prevailing
in Torah debates 373 has become a dried-up leather water bag, having forgotten his Torah
scholarship and lost his manliness.
(4) Rabbi Elazar then waits for his fellow disciples to come join him, but they do not come. So he
requests permission from his wife to go join them in Yavneh, but she does not let him. He is
depicted as a disgraced scholar who has forsaken disciplined Torah study for sexual satisfaction and
whose uncontrolled passion makes him a slave to his wife.374 Furthermore, he has violated the stern
Rabbinic code expressed in Avot 4:14, Be (ever) migrating to a place of Torah (study), and do not
say: She (Torah wisdom) will follow me. This is made explicit in the parallels (cited in note 367
above).
(5) Rabbi Elazars wife says: Who has need of whom? He replies: They have need of me (heim
tzerikhim li) Rabbi Elazar and his wife think that the other remaining sages in the disciple circle of
the late Rabban Yochanan son of Zakkai need him. Apparently they believe he is the greatest sage
among the remaining disciples who have need of his brilliant intellect in their dialectic analysis of
Rabbinic traditions. According to Avot 2:8e, Rabban Yochanan son of Zakkai stated: Even if all the
sages of Israel were in one pan of a balance-scale, yet (should) Eliezer son of Horqanos (be) in the
other pan, he would outweigh them all. But in Avot 2:8f, the Venerable Shaul in the name of
Rabban Yochanan son of Zakkai reports a different opinion: Even if all the sages of Israel were in
one pan of a balance-scale, and Eliezer son of Horqanos (along) with them, yet (should) Elazar son
of Arakh (be) in the other pan, he would outweigh them all.375 It is impossible to determine if
either or both of these divergent opinions are later creations or authentic traditions; after all,
Yochanan could have changed his mind or expressed differing views on different occasions. But what
is truly relevant in the context of this story is Rabban Yochanans praise of these two disciples in Avot
2:8d, Eliezer son of HorqanosA plastered cistern which does not lose a drop; Elazar son of
ArakhAn overwhelming spring. Underlying Avot 2:8 is the Rabbinic debate over breadth versus
depth of Torah knowledge. Rabbi Eliezer son of Horqanos represents the master of mishnah, an
erudite sage who has memorized and can explain a wealth of Rabbinic traditions. Rabbi Elazar son
of Arakh represents the master of talmud, a scholar who is renowned for his dialectical analysis of
mishnah traditions. Many scholars argue that in the Tannaitic period the view that mastery of
372

The myth that emission of semen by masturbation or excessive sexual activity drains ones stamina and manliness
and makes him effeminate has existed for millenia. See Martin, Contradictions of Masculinity, especially 86-97.
373

See note 233 to Avot 2:8d. Compare Ben Sira 21:13, The knowledge of a sage will increase like a fountain, and his
counsel is like a flowing/living spring.
374

See the end of note 65 to Avot 1:5. He has violated the stern Rabbinic code expressed in Avot 4:14, Be (ever)
migrating to a place of Torah (study), and do not say: Ihe will follow me (meaning) that your companions will preserve
it in your grasp. This is made explicit in the parallel in Avot deRabbi Natan cited in note 256 above. Satlow, Try to Be
a Man, shows that the emasculated sage is one who gives in to lust and thereby loses his Torah learning. Indeed,
philosophers from Plato to Philo argue that uncontrolled sexual desire is the primary and most incorrigible source of all
vices. See Gaca, The Making of Fornication; Avot 3:13a; note 91 to Avot 4:11a; note 146 to Avot 2:5b; note 88 to
Excursus B 3.2.6.3.
375

The connection to Avot 2:8f was already notred by Zeev Wolf Einhorn in his commentary to Midrash Rabbah
Ecclesiastes 7:7 (edition Vilna, 19a).

mishnah took precedence over mastery of talmud was more popular, whereas later on mastery of
talmud took pride of place.376 Rabbi Elazars remark, They have need of me, probably contains
an echo of the tradition in Avot 2:8f that Rabban Yochanan thought that he, the master of dialectical
analysis, outweighed all the other disciples combined.
(6) She then asks rhetorically: A leather bag and mice: Whose (normal) way is it to go to the
thing which it seeks? The mice over to the leather bag, or the bag over to the mice? Hebrew cheimet
is a (leather/skin) bag used for storing liquids, usually water, wine, milk, or oil.377 Its appearance
here is bizarre, since it is not the normal behavior of house mice to seek water by chewing through a
leather bag. It makes no sense to speak of mice seeking a leather bag. It should have stated a
container of food or a specific food, such as cheese, bread, etc. Indeed, in Yalqut Shimoni
Ecclesiastes 503, pat, piece (of bread) replaces the awkward leather bag. In Seder Eliyahu Rabbah
14, however, (cited in note 65 to Excursus B 3.1.7), cheimet is used to symbolize testicles.378 The
image of the leather bag (testicles) here is used to highlight the homiletical interpretation of the
verse, For debauchery will rob the sage of reason. His wifes rhetorical questionWhose (normal) way
is it to go to the thing which it seeks? The mice over to the leather bag, or the bag over to the
mice?may well be an ancient version of the modern saying, What are you: a man or a mouse? It
is especially ironic, since despite his ballsy stance toward his follow sages, he is impotent towards
his wife, who controls his decisions. The ultimate disgrace for a man is to lose his self-control and be
subservient to his wife. In a similar vein, note the contemptuous reference to the sages as mice by
Rabbi Elazars wife.
(7) The reference to mice may hint at a popular notion that consuming the water drunk by a
mouse leads to forgetting ones powers of dialectical analysis.379 See Babylonian Talmud Horayot
13a-13b (following Manuscript Paris 1337), His (own) disciples asked of Rabbi Elazar son of
Rabbi Tzadoq:380 On account of what (reason) does a dog recognize its owner but a cat does not
376

See Excursus B 6.8.4 and notes.

377

It is identical to Hebrew nod, (goatskin) bag, also used for storing liquids. Compare Hebrew nevel, skin bag (for
liquids), and naval, stupid, vile person, a dirtbag. Levine, The Story of R. Elazar b. Arach, 282 note 16, cites two
passages from the Tosefta which refer to a leather bag (cheimet) conceivably being being used for pomegranates or bread,
but in both instances the sages appear to be inventing theoretical cases to clarify a fine point of legal reasoning; these are
not examples of the everyday use of a cheimet. See the discussion in Babylonian Talmud Niddah 13b about how to
determine whether a priest with dementia has a seminal discharge while sleeping. One rabbi suggests affixing a leather
bag (kis shel or) which can be examined for traces of semen before any holy food is given to him. Note that although the
printed editions (beginning with Venice, 1520) of Babylonian Talmud Yoma 35b read: he lifts a (leather/skin) bag
(nod) of flour onto his shoulder, this spurious reading is not found in any manuscripts. Munich 6 reads: a burden
(masoi) of flour on his shoulder; Munich 95 and Genizah fragment Saint Petersburg (National Library of Russia,
Antonin Oriental Collection, Hebrew II A 293/1): and (with) flour on his shoulder; New York (Jewish Theological
Seminary, Rabbinic 218 [Enelow Memorial Collection 270]): he would lift his burden (masao); Oxford
(Oppenheimer Collection, Additional Folio 2): he would lift his burden on his shoulders; and it is missing in
Manuscripts London (British Library, Harley 5508) and New York (Jewish Theological Seminary, Rabbinic 1623
[Enelow Memorial Collection 271]).
378

See Seder Eliyahu Rabbah 14, cited in note 65 to Excursus B 3.1.7. On the association of sperm with water, see
Kosman, Gender and Dialogue in the Rabbinic Prism, 156 note 4.
379
380

Pointed out by Goshen-Gottstein, The Sinner and the Amnesiac, 251.

Goshen-Gottstein, following the reading Rabbi Elazar in the printed editions (beginning with Venice, 1521),
suggests this tradition is attributed to Rabbi Elazar son of Arakh. However, the reading is Rabbi Elazar son of Rabbi

recognize its owner? He said to them: Just as the (scholar) who eats (something) from which a mouse
has eaten forgets his (powers of) dialectical analysis (of Rabbinic legal traditions) (talmudo),381 is it
not all the more so (true of) a cat which eats the mouse itself! His (own) disciples asked of Rabbi
Elazar son of Rabbi Tzadoq: On account of what (reason) does everyone suppress/control mice? He
said to them: On account of its (doing people) a bad turn (suro). What is it? Rava said: Even
(though not its food) they gnaw clothes. Rav Pappa said: Even (though not its food) they gnaw the
(wooden) handle of a spade. Five382 things put out of mind (ones powers of dialectical) analysis:
The one who eats something from which a mouse has eaten. In fact, humans who consume food
contaminated by mice may contract several mouse-borne diseases, including salmonellosis. If the
infection spreads into the blood stream, it can lead to typhoid fever, which can result in confusion,
delirium, and death in severe cases.
(8) His former colleagues ask Rabbi Elazar to explain an abstruse 383 Rabbinic tradition 384
identical to one found in Mishnah Negaim 13:9,385 Sifra,386 and parallels387 which deals with a house
that is impure due to an outbreak of plague. The body of anyone who enters becomes impure
immediately. However, the clothes one wears, along with rings on fingers and sandals on feetthey
are pure until one tarries (there for the time it would take) in order (to) eat a loaf broken (in half)a
half-loaf of wheat bread, but not a half-loaf of barley bread reclining and eating it with a relish.
Given the thousands of Rabbinic dicta that might have been raised, this particular choice must surely
have some symbolic significant in context. While in the Bible and Rabbinic literature fungal
Tzadoq in all early witnesses: Manuscripts Paris, Munich, and Genizah fragment New York (Jewish Theological
Seminary, Elkan Nathan Adler Collection 2710.44).
381

Although edition Vilna reads limmud, learning, the correct reading here is talmud, (dialectical) analysis, which is
found in all the earliest Talmudic witnesses as well as all the witnesses of Ecclesiastes Rabbah. It is ones powers of
dialectical analysis rather than simply ones learning which is discussed here. Indeed, the continuation refers to those
scholars who do and do not possess the understanding to learn/hear (daat lishmoa), that is, follow the legal debates.
See note 384 below. On daat as the capacity to absorb and integrate information, as well as utilize it to make
independent judgments, see note 746 to Avot 3:17a.
382

Manuscript Munich and the printed editions add: The scholars learned (a Tannaitic tradition): Five things.

383

The subjects of Tractate Negaim were considerd particularly abstruse. See Lieberman, Hellenism in Jewish Palestine,
111 note 73; Yassif, The Hebrew Folktale, 185-186. Compare Babylonian Talmud Sanhedrin 38b.
384

There is no introductory formula citing this tradition as a Mishnah. Indeed, nearly identical traditions are found in
other Tannaitic sources. It is presumably cited as an oral tradition that predates the editing of the Mishnah. It is also
possible that there is no introductory citation formula because the context is not a typical Talmudic legal argument or
the editorship felt it would seem awkward from a literary and rhetorical point of view.
385

On this passage, see Neusner, A History of the Mishnaic Law of Purities, Part 6: Negaim, 258-260.

386

Sifra Metzora 5:7 (edition Weiss, 74c; following Manuscript Vatican 66), What is the elucidation (that comes by
Scripture) stating (Leviticus 14:47), And the one who lies down (in the house must wash his clothes;) and the one who eats (in
the house must wash his clothes) except to give a (minimum legal) measure (of time concerning) one who lies down. (The
juxtaposition of lying down and eating in the verse implies that the time limit one may lie down in the afflicted house
before clothes become impure is the same as the time) in order for the one who eats (in the afflicted house) to eat (a
snack). And how much is the (minimum legal) measure (of time for) eating (a snack)? (Time enough) in order for the
eating of a half-loaf: a portion of wheat bread, but not a portion of barley breadreclining and eating it with a relish.
387

See Sifra Metzora Parashah 5:13 (edition Weiss, 73b; following Manuscript Vatican 66); Tosefta Negaim 7:8
(following Manuscript Vienna); Babylonian Talmud Berakhot 41a; Eruvin 4a; Chullin 71b. Compare Mishnah Negaim
13:10; Eruvin 8:2; Karitot 3:3; Tosefta Yoma 4:4; Karitot 2:2; Miqvaot 8:2-3; Sifra Metzora 5:5-12 (edition Weiss,
74c); Babylonian Talmud Pesachim 44a; Yoma 80b; Karitot 12b-13a.

afflictions are normally considered the result of sin, house afflictions alone bear explicit traces of
divine causality.388 The Sages transform the levitical impurity rules into a template of Rabbinic ethics
in which an afflicted house is a moral warning: the plague represents antisocial behavior and the
breakdown of social values,389 in particular malicious/evil speech and arrogance.390 Rabbi Elazar son
of Arakh is guilty on both counts! He arrogantly leaves the other sages and goes off alone, and he
assents to his wifes denigration of his former colleagues by calling them mice. As a divine
punishment, his (powers of dialectical) analysis were forgotten/uprooted.391
(9) Since a whole loaf of bread normally ranged from 1 to 1.6 pounds, half a loaf would be about
six or seven slices of bread. In the Greco-Roman world, coarse barley bread was often dipped in wine
to make it more digestible. Wheat bread, on the other hand, could readily be dipped in a relish, and
it was preferred for serving to proper guests.392 A guest would consume wheat bread in less time than
barley bread, since it was easier to chew and swallow, and this shorter time period is set by the
Rabbinic law above. It would take at least five minutes to consume a half loaf of wheat bread with
relish while reclining on a couch and engaging in polite conversation. According to Tosefta Berakhot
4:14 (edition Lieberman, 1:21), when one was served a half loaf of bread, one knew that another
course would typically follow. In this case, however, guests would presumably take their leave even
before they finished a half loaf; they were not there for a free meal. The tradition in Mishnah
Negaim rules that impurity only adheres to the clothing and jewelry of a self-indulgent guest who
eats liesurely. In Antiquity ones clothing and jewelry have a complex social significance in
constructing inter- and intra- group identities and boundaries.393 Rabbi Elazar and his fellow sages
would have worn a white pallium, the characteristic sole garment of the scholar and philosopher.394
388

Jacobowitz, Leviticus Rabbah and the Spiritualization of the Laws of Impurity, 197.

389

See Jacobowitz, Leviticus Rabbah and the Spiritualization of the Laws of Impurity, 185-221, especially 208-221;
Klawans, Impurity and Sin in Ancient Judaism, 98-104; Noam, The Dual Strategy of Rabbinic Purity Legislation;
Noam, Ritual Impurity in Tannaitic Literature.
390

See, for example, Sifra Metzora Parashah 5:7 (edition Weiss, 73a; following Manuscript Vatican 66), The priest
should punctiliously (examine) how the affliction came to the house. The priest should say to (the owner of the afflicted
house) words of intimidation (encouraging repentance), saying: My son, (such) afflictions do not come except on
account of malicious/evil speech.... Rabbi Shimon son of Elazar says: (Such) afflictions also come on account of
arrogance. See also Tosefta Negaim 6:7; Sifrei Deuteronomy 275 (edition Finkelstein, 294); Sifrei Numbers 1 (edition
Kahana, 89). See Kahana, Sifre on Numbers, 31.
391

The motif of forgetfulness as a divine punishment with this expression appears in the story about Rabbi Elazar in
Babylonian Talmud Shabbat 147b. See note 363 above. Compare Babylonian Talmud Bava Batra 9b (following
Manuscript Hamburg 165), He (Rav Ahadboi son of Ami) was replying to him (Rav Sheshet) derisively/flippantly. The
mind of Rav Sheshet became distraught. (As a divine punishment) Rav Ahadboi son of Ami fell silent, his (powers of
dialectical) analysis (of Rabbinic traditions) was forgotten/uprooted. On this tale, Kosman, The Female Breast and the
Male Mouth: A Talmudic Vignette (BT Bava Batra 9a-b).
392

See Hamel, Poverty and Charity in Roman Palestine, 4-7, 15-16, 24-27, 229; Sperber, A Commentary on Derech Erez
Zuta, 71-79. Compare Athenaeus of Naucratis, The Sages Banquet (Deipnosophistae), 3:115C, Diphilus of Siphnos, in
his Diet for Sick and Well, says that wheat bread is more nourishing, more digestible, and in every way superior to barley
bread. For details, see Broshi, The Diet of Palestine in the Roman Period, 17-19.
393

See Batten, Daniel-Hughes, and Saia, What Shall We Wear?, especially 2-3 note 5. See also Cohen, Those Who
Say They Are Jews and Are Not: How Do You Know a Jew in Antiquity When You See One?, in Cohen, The
Beginnings of Jewishness, 30-34.
394

See note 65 to Excursus B 4.2.2.

By showing self-control and restraint in the house of plague and mourning, a Jew could preserve the
purity and integrity of his social-religious identity. The implication seems to be that Rabbi Elazar
has lost his learning not only on account of his malicious speech and arrogance, but also because he
was self-indulgent and complacent.395
(10) The choice of this specific question which refers to eating in a house of plague contains
contains another element crucial to the meaning of the story: human consumption. Chewing and
swallowing are metaphors for a sages digestion of Torah learning. Words of Torah are chewed in the
mouth by constant rehearsal, and readily swallowed by elucidation through dialectical analysis and
debate, then properly digested by integrating the law into living praxis. As a scholar, Rabbi Elazar
dutifully rehearsed mishnah and followed Rabbinic practice, but he was most famous for his powers
of dialectical analysis, for which he was renowned as an overwhelming spring.396 In the story,
Rabbi Elazar is not criticized for forgetting this particular law; indeed, they cite it to him as a
necessary part of their question. Rather, he has lost his talmud, his disciplined learning based on his
prodigious powers of analysis; he is unable to explain even a simple teaching: the overwhelming
spring of water (Torah) is reduced to a dried-up leather water bag.397
(11) Also underlying this story is the idea that a sage who forgets Rabbinic learning threatens the
ongoing transmission of the oral tradition. Rabbi Elazar serves as a warning to all scholars. A sage
deserves social death whenever his behavior sullies his male honor, such as forgetting teachings,
being dominated by his wife, or worst of all, defecting from the discipleship circle.398 By raising this
particular teaching for elucidation, his former colleagues are alluding to his house being like a house
of plague. Rabbi Elazars behavior has left him emasculated and ostracized. Unlike the parallel tale
related in the Babylonian Talmud in which the sages pray for the restoration of Elazars Rabbinic
acumen and intelligence, in this version the story ends abruptly: But he did not know how to
respond. Presumably the Sages do not stay for even five minutesenough for a snackbut depart
quickly before their clothingtheir group identitybecomes impure.
(12) Appended to the story is a seemingly innocent explanatory gloss on the phrase and eating it
with a relish. What is the meaning of with a relish? Rabbi Elazar and Rabbi Yose explain that it
means two hors doeuvres (served) beside each other. It is curious that something so
straightforward elicits a comment. Might it be a hint that in order to properly digest ones food

395

See Levine, The Story of R. Elazar b. Arach. On the invention of Rabbinic traditions about earlier sages, see
Goshen-Gotstein, The Sinner and the Amnesiac: The Rabbinic Invention of Elisha ben Abuya and Eleazar ben Arach. For
his analysis of this story, see Goshen-Gottstein, 247-257.
396

On this and also the notion of digesting ones learning, see note 213 to Avot 2:8d; note 273 to Avot 5:22.
Compare note 128 to Avot 5:10.
397
398

Pointed out by Goshen-Gottstein, The Sinner and the Amnesiac, and Levine, The Story of R. Elazar b. Arach.

See Jaffee, Gender and Otherness in Rabbinic Oral Culture, 22-23, argues that the sages felt considerable anxiety
about the acquisition, mastery, and transmission of the memorized traditions, which he terms the anxiety of Oral
Tradition. Torah learning was a marker of male identity and entitlement in Rabbinic circles. Forgetfulness of oral
tradition is no mere failure of memory. Deliberate or even inadvertent inattention to the perpetuation of the tradition
entails consequences analogous to the willful courting of death (23). See note 537 to Avot 3:7b; Hirshman, The
Stabilization of Rabbinic Culture, 31-48.

(Torah), a scholar needs to dine (study) alongside another scholar (or scholars).399
3.5.8.8 It is possible that the terms yoke of (conjugal) intercourse and yoke of a wife (see 3.4
above) also insinuate that a married scholar must control his sexual passion; otherwise, he may
become debauched, fall under the yoke of his wife, and become a slave to her control.
3.5.8.9 While not all Rabbinic traditions are as complex and multilayered as this one, containing
numerous allusions and word plays, the modern interpreter should not assume that a midrashic text
can be fully and properly understood simply by making a literal, straightforward translation that
results in an insipid narrative with no connection to the Scriptural proof text and no didactic,
inspiring message for its ancient readers.

399

On the danger of studying Torah alone, see Klein, Torah in Triclinia, 325-326. Compare Babylonian Talmud
Taanit 7a (following Manuscript Jerusalem, Yad HaRav Herzog), Words of Torah are not sustainable alone (by
oneself). On the role of the companion, see note 85 to Avot 1:6. Compare Palestinian Talmud Sheviit 8:5, 38b and
Nedarim 11:1 (edition Venice, 42c; edition Sussmann, 207, 1048), where a disciples ignorance is attributed to not
studying with his companions; Genesis Rabbah 69:2 (edition Theodor-Albeck, 791), A knife is sharpened only on the
blade of its fellow, so a scholarly disciple does not improve except by his companion; Babylonian Talmud Taanit 7a;
Avot 6:6, he guides him (his companion) to truth. Compare Avot 3:2b.

Embody the Divine:

Tractate Avot
Teachings of the Eminent Forefathers

Rabbi Dennis Beck-Berman

Embody the Divine:

Tractate Avot
Teachings of
the Eminent Forefathers

Volume 1
A Critical Edition of
Mishnah Tractate Avot
Based on Mishnah Codex Kaufmann
and Other Ancient Witnesses,
with an Introduction, Translation,
and Comprehensive Commentary

By Rabbi Dennis Beck-Berman