The Story of Bati bar Tuvi
The Talmud at the end of Avodah Zara (76b) presents a striking narrative:
כִּי הָא דְּמָר יְהוּדָה וּבָאטִי בַּר טוֹבִי הֲווֹ יָתְבִי קַמֵּיהּ דְּשַׁבּוּר מַלְכָּא, אַיְיתוֹ לְקַמַּיְיהוּ אֶתְרוֹגָא. פְּסַק אֲכַל, פְּסַק וְהַב לֵיהּ לְבָאטִי בַּר טוֹבִי, הֲדַר דָּצַהּ עַשְׂרָה זִימְנֵי בְּאַרְעָא, פְּסַק הַב לֵיהּ לְמָר יְהוּדָה. אֲמַר לֵיהּ בָּאטִי בַּר טוֹבִי: וְהָהוּא גַּבְרָא לָאו בַּר יִשְׂרָאֵל הוּא? אֲמַר לֵיהּ: מָר קִים לִי בְּגַוֵּיהּ, וּמָר לָא קִים לִי בְּגַוֵּיהּ.
This is like that incident involving Mar Yehuda and Bati bar Tuvi, a wealthy man, who were sitting before King Shapur, the king of Persia. The king's servants brought an etrog before them. The king cut a slice and ate it, and then he cut a slice and gave it to Bati bar Tuvi. He then stuck the knife ten times in the ground, cut a slice, and gave it to Mar Yehuda. Bati bar Tuvi said to him: And is that man, referring to himself, not Jewish? King Shapur said to him: I am certain of that master, Mar Yehuda, that he is meticulous about halakha; but I am not certain of that master, referring to Bati bar Tuvi, that he is meticulous in this regard.
The gemara continues with an alternate version:
אִיכָּא דְאָמְרִי, אֲמַר לֵיהּ: אִידְּכַר מַאי עֲבַדְתְּ בְּאוּרְתָּא.
There are those who say that King Shapur said to him: Remember what you did last night. The Persian practice was to present a woman to each guest, with whom he would engage in intercourse. Mar Yehuda did not accept the woman who was sent to him, but Bati bar Tuvi did, and therefore he was not assumed to be meticulous with regard to eating kosher food.
Historical Background: The Key to Understanding Bati bar Tuvi
To understand this strange interaction, we must first examine the historical background. Tosafot and other commentators cite a gemara in Kiddushin 70a, where R' Yehuda announced: "באטי בר טובי ברמות רוחיה לא קיבל גיטא דחירותא" - "Bati bar Tuvi, in the arrogance of his spirit, did not accept his manumission documents."
This reveals that Bati bar Tuvi was a non-Jewish-born slave who had never completed his conversion to Judaism, and thus did not have the full status of a Jew and was forbidden from marrying into the community. His refusal to accept his freedom created a complex halakhic status - he remained in some form of servitude even though he was wealthy and moved in high circles.
Both in Avodah Zara and in Kiddushin, the counterpart to Bati is Rav Yehuda. On a surface level, both narratives align in assigning Bati's legal and moral status to his own responsibility or lack thereof. His legal status as a Jew is compromised due to his failure to get his manumission documents, and in Avodah Zara, his failure to be recognized as a functioning Jew by the king is due to his lack of reputation for scrupulous observance or, worse yet, due to his partaking in the comfort woman.
But a deeper understanding can be gained when we delve into the historical and religious patterns that played out during this period. These tensions and different approaches can be appreciated with a detailed reading of Talmudic narratives, particularly Kiddushin 70.
The Institutional Landscape: Two Traditions of Jewish Leadership
Disclaimer: These depictions are patterns that emerge from wide reading of the Talmud. They highlight a tiny area of focus, but they in no way present a complete or true portrait of these larger than life titans of Jewish scholarship and piety. Nor does it attempt to pass judgement on any particular figure or approach. To do that would be reductionist, disrespectful and dishonest and is not our intent.
The Original Center: Nehardea and Shmuel's Integrated Approach
In Babylonia, up until the end of the 3rd century, Jewish power and learning were centralized around Nehardea, an ancient seat of Jewish presence. On the one hand, Jewish political power was in the hands of the Exilarch, the Resh Galuta. The Exilarch was a *de facto* ruler of the Jewish diaspora, with a police force, tax collectors, and various official powers. The Exilarchate acted as the intermediary between the independent Jewish community and their sovereign overlords. The period we are addressing, the mid 3rd century to the early 4th century saw the rise of Sassanian Empire, a Persian dynasty that ruled over Babylonia. The first 'great' emperor was King Shapur I.
At the same time, the great houses of Jewish learning were also in Nehardea. The great first generation Amora Shmuel and his father taught there. Shmuel represented a remarkable synthesis of Jewish scholarship with practical engagement in the broader Persian world. In addition to his mastery of Torah, he was an astronomer (berachot 58b), physician (Bava Metzia 85b), and most importantly for our analysis, a judge who dealt with daily business disputes, interfaith relations, and the practical accommodations necessary for Jewish life in the diaspora. He interacted with Zoroastrian intellectual circles at Bei Avidan (Shabbat 116a) and established the fundamental principle that "dina d'malkhuta dina" - the law of the kingdom is law (Gittin 10b).
This judicial role was crucial. As a practical judge in civil matters, Shmuel had to navigate the messy realities of Jewish-Persian interaction, making daily decisions that required accommodation and compromise with the broader cultural environment.
The Alternative Vision: Rav's Isolationist Academy
When Rav came to Babylonia, c. 219 CE, he encountered difficulties in Nehardea, which was already an important center of sages and Torah where figures like Rav Shila, Samuel, and Karna flourished. Initially Rav served as an interpreter in Rav Shila's bet midrash and briefly as an *agoranomos*, a market commissioner, a position he resigned because he refused to regulate prices in accordance with his Palestinian halakhic training. This behavior was an early indicator of his demeanor. Rav left Nehardea and established his academy at Sura. Rather than engaging with the broader Persian intellectual and cultural milieu that characterized Shmuel's approach, Rav concentrated on internal Jewish law and learning, and transmission of the Torah he received in the land of Israel, developing what would become known for its dialectical brilliance in a purely yeshiva setting, operating in the realm of theoretical halakhic analysis rather than practical judicial decisions. This represented a more isolationist and rabbinic approach, focusing on internal Jewish law and ritual.
The Disciples' Divergent Paths
Two of Shmuel's most prominent disciples would come to embody these competing visions of Jewish leadership:
Rav Nachman inherited Shmuel's judicial tradition. He became a practical judge, dealing with real-world disputes, and through marriage became connected to the Exilarchate. He lived in Nehardea and represented the continuation of that pragmatic, accommodationist approach to Jewish governance.
Rav Yehuda, despite being Shmuel's most prominent disciple, later also studied under Rav and adopted key elements of Rav's more isolationist, dialectical approach. Crucially, he was not known as a judge but as a sharp dialectical rabbi, renowned for his analytical abilities and talmudic argumentation rather than practical and civil judicial work.
This divergence becomes essential for understanding what follows. Two leading students of the same master came to represent fundamentally different philosophies of Jewish leadership - one practical and accommodating, the other theoretical and uncompromising.
The Character of Rav Yehuda: Saint and Uncompromising Purist
Understanding Rav Yehuda's actions requires recognizing his extraordinary spiritual stature. The Talmud in Taanit (24b) relates that when Rav Yehuda would remove just one shoe for the purpose of fasting for rain, the skies would immediately open up. He was a figure of exceptional saintliness, an ascetic fully immersed in Torah with no room for ordinary political pragmatism.
This spiritual authority gave weight to his uncompromising vision. When Nehardea was destroyed by Odenathus during the Palmyrene-Persian war, around 259 CE, Rav Yehuda established his own academy at Pumbedita, consciously choosing to follow Rav's isolationist model rather than continue his primary teacher Shmuel's more integrated approach with Persian culture. This represented a deliberate rejection of the accommodationist path that had characterized the old center. It was an act of separation from the Exilarchate, from assimilation risks and from what was perceived as threats to the integrity of continuing spiritual health of the Jewish people.
Rav Yehuda's Campaign for Jewish Authenticity
The Pumbedita Project
From his new base at Pumbedita, Rav Yehuda embarked on what can only be understood as a religiously motivated campaign to establish authentic Jewish leadership. The Talmud in Kiddushin 70b records his proclamations against important families in Nehardea as having suspect lineage, while promoting Pumbedita as a paragon of pure lineage, superior to those in Israel or Nehardea.
These were not political maneuvers but religious convictions. As a figure whose very presence could bring divine intervention, Rav Yehuda saw genealogical purity and halakhic scrupulousness as essential for Jewish survival in the diaspora. From his perspective, the accommodationist approach of the old establishment was not merely misguided but spiritually dangerous. The following are paraphrased extractions from the text. For the full text in Kiddushin, see appendix.
The Triptych of Compromised Identity: A Unified Analysis
Rav Yehuda's confrontations can be understood not as isolated incidents but as a sustained campaign against a specific and widespread phenomenon: the illegitimate integration of individuals of slave descent into the Jewish elite by manipulating their access to wealth and political power. This project was fueled by his belief that genealogical purity and uncompromising halakhic scrupulousness were essential for Jewish survival in the diaspora. The Talmudic narrative presents a triptych of figures who represent this singular problem.
Ancient Institutional Corruption: The Slaves of Pashhur ben Immer
The most ancient layer of corruption had its roots in Jeremiah's time many centuries earlier. As the Talmud records: "Four hundred slaves, and some say four thousand slaves, were owned by Pashhur ben Immer, a priest in the time of Jeremiah, and all of them were assimilated into the priesthood." By Rav Yehuda's era, "They all sit in the rows of honor that are in the city of Neharde'a." These false priests had occupied positions of religious authority for generations, their illegitimate origins obscured by time and custom.
Historical Political False Claims: The Hasmonean Pattern
The second layer involved false claims to Hasmonean royal lineage. To understand why such claims were fraudulent, we must recall that Antipater and his son Herod, originally Edomite slaves in service to the Hasmonean kings, had through manipulation married into the royal family and eventually usurped power entirely. When people claimed "Hasmonean" descent, they were actually descendants of these Edomite usurpers, not the legitimate royal line.
Shmuel had established a ruling: "Anyone who says: I come from the house of the Hasmonean kings, is a slave." The historical basis was that after the last legitimate Hasmonean girl declared that all future claimants would be slaves and then died, only descendants of Herod the Edomite remained from what people called the "Hasmonean" line.
This pattern came to light through a specific incident that began at a Pumbedita butcher shop. A man from Nehardea, insulted at being asked to wait for Rav Yehuda's servant, mockingly called the sage "Yehuda bar Sheviske'el" (a derogatory term for a glutton). When this insult was reported to Rav Yehuda, he excommunicated the man for disparaging a Torah scholar. Learning that the man habitually called others slaves, Rav Yehuda proclaimed him a slave as well.
The insulted Nehardean then summoned Rav Yehuda to appear before Rav Nachman's court, where his false claim to Hasmonean royal lineage would be exposed. The subsequent proclamation caused many a marriage contract in Nehardea to be torn up.
Contemporary Administrative Corruption: Bati bar Tuvi
The third example was contemporary: Bati bar Tuvi himself. Rav Yehuda's proclamation declared: "Bati bar Tuviyya, in his arrogance, did not accept a bill of manumission and is still a slave."
The basic facts are stark: Bati was a slave who had refused his freedom documents. Yet he was also wealthy and influential enough to sit alongside prominent rabbis before King Shapur of Persia as seen in Avodah Zara 76b.. This combination - slave status with elite access - epitomized the kind of illegitimate integration that Rav Yehuda opposed. These 3 stories, all active and present in his time in Nehardea, were seen by Rav Yehuda as corruption of purity via the proximity to political power, wealth and accommodationist tendencies that brought assimilation, admixture, and spiritual decay.
The Confrontation Unfolds: Rav Yehuda Before Rav Nachman's Court
The intensity of Rav Yehuda's convictions is illustrated in the details of the story about the man who insulted Rav Yehuda at the butcher shop.
The insulted Nehardean summoned Rav Yehuda to appear before Rav Nachman's court in Nehardea. When Rav Yehuda consulted Rav Huna about whether to honor the summons, he was told: "As for the obligation to go, you are not required to go, since you are a great man. But due to the honor of the Exilarch's house, as Rav Naḥman was the son-in-law of the Exilarch, get up and go." What followed was not merely a legal proceeding but an ideological confrontation that exposed the fundamental divide between Rav Yehuda's uncompromising purism and the accommodationist culture of Nehardea. From the moment Rav Yehuda arrived and found Rav Nachman constructing a parapet, the encounter became a systematic challenge to the linguistic and cultural compromises that Rav Yehuda saw as symptomatic of deeper spiritual failures. "Is the term ma'akeh, which is written in the Torah, or the corresponding term meḥitza, which the Sages said, distasteful to you?" Rav Yehuda demanded when Rav Nachman used the colloquial term "gundarita" for his fence. When offered a seat on a "karfita," Rav Yehuda again corrected: "Is the term safsal, which the Sages said, or the word itzteva, which common people say, distasteful to you?" The pattern intensified when Rav Nachman offered refreshments. "Let the Master eat a citron "etronga” he suggested, prompting Rav Yehuda's sharp rebuke: "This is what Shmuel said: Anyone who says etronga demonstrates one-third of a haughtiness of spirit. He should either say etrog, as the Sages called it, or etroga, as common people say in Aramaic." Each attempt at hospitality became an occasion for correction, each casual linguistic choice an opportunity to expose what Rav Yehuda saw as the arrogance underlying cultural accommodation. The confrontation reached its climax when Rav Nachman suggested having his daughter pour drinks and sending greetings to his wife Yalta. Rav Yehuda's uncompromising citations of Shmuel's restrictions on interaction with women left Rav Nachman floundering until Yalta herself intervened: "Release him and conclude your business with him, so that he not equate you with another ignoramus." By this point, the power dynamic had completely reversed. Rav Nachman, intimidated in his own court, feebly protested: "Now that I have not even learned the Master's form of speech, as you have demonstrated your superiority to me by reproving me even over such matters, could I have sent a summons to the Master?" Rashi explains Rav Yehuda’s antagonism as a demonstration of his annoyance for being summoned. But our reading sees his reaction to the claimant and his reaction to Rav Nachman’s court, his Nehardean milieu, and his exilarchic association as part of the same ideological battle he was waging. And as mentioned earlier, this court case resulted in the proclamation and invalidation of prominent Nehardean families.
This story reveals the depth of the ideological divide. Here was Rav Nachman, a great sage, but a pragmatic judge. He represented certain elements of the old Nehardean establishment and was connected to the Exilarchate through marriage, and is being intimidated in his own court by the uncompromising moral authority of Rav Yehuda. The case involved someone with Hasmonean/Herodian connections - precisely the kind of political legacy achieved through accommodation and compromise that Rav Yehuda opposed as fundamentally corrupting to Jewish authenticity.
The Rise and Persona of Bati bar Tuvi
An Administrative Success Story
Bati bar Tuvi represents everything Rav Yehuda opposed in the old system. Rabbeinu Gershom notes that Bati was very wealthy, but how does a slave attain such wealth and influence? What is a former slave doing in the presence of the king with one of the leading sages? The answer lies in understanding him as a talented administrator in service of a powerful house, likely the Exilarchate. He likely gained influence within the Exilarchate's bureaucratic apparatus, eventually becoming wealthy enough and influential enough to sit alongside prominent rabbis before the Persian king.
His presence at King Shapur's court alongside Rav Yehuda indicates that Bati had achieved a remarkable rise from slavery to become an important intermediary between the Jewish community and Sassanian overlords. This was precisely the kind of pragmatic accommodation that allowed the Jewish community to function within the Persian Empire, but risked assimilationist and legal compromises.
The Psychological Trap of Constructed Identity
Bati's refusal to accept his manumission documents reveals a profound psychological bind. As someone who had constructed his identity as an important Jewish courtier, accepting those documents would require acknowledging the very slave origins he was trying to obscure. His wealth and influence became substitutes for legitimate Jewish status, but this left him trapped in perpetual inauthenticity.
When Rav Yehuda proclaimed "באטי בר טובי ברמות רוחיה לא קיבל גיטא דחירותא," he was offering a precise spiritual diagnosis: Bati's arrogant spirit prevented him from taking the very step that would legitimize his status because it would require the humility to acknowledge his past. Pride had become the barrier to authentic Jewish identity.
A Speculative Note on Cultural Origins
This analysis suggests a speculative but plausible theory about Bati's background. The name "Bati" may derive from the Greek "Battos," suggesting Hellenistic origins. Greek-educated slaves were prized throughout the ancient world for their administrative and cultural skills, and such a background would explain both Bati's rise to prominence and his ability to navigate Persian court culture.
If Bati was indeed of Greek origin, this would add another layer to his complex identity - not just a former slave, but a cultural outsider who had reinvented himself as a Jewish courtier while remaining fundamentally foreign to authentic Jewish religious sensibilities. His Hellenistic background would have provided exactly the cosmopolitan skills valued in international diplomacy, but at the cost of genuine religious authenticity.
The Encounter Before King Shapur: A Clash of Worlds
The Cultural Context
The meeting before King Shapur takes place within the context of Persian-Jewish accommodation that Rav Yehuda fundamentally opposed. Zoroastrian practices shared many similarities with Jewish ritual requirements, particularly regarding purity laws, animal slaughter, and ritual cleanliness. King Shapur's careful koshering of the knife for Rav Yehuda demonstrates his understanding of these shared religious sensibilities.
But this cultural understanding had its limits. Shapur could recognize authentic religious scrupulousness when he saw it, and he could equally recognize its absence. His differential treatment of the two Jewish figures reflected not arbitrary preference but a Persian ruler's assessment of genuine versus constructed religious identity.
If our speculative theory is correct, and Bati was of Hellenistic origin, that explains even more why Shapur saw him as a cultural outsider and did not have ritualist expectations of him.
The Psychological Drama Unfolds
Bati's outraged response - "Am I not a Jew?" - reveals the psychological wound at the center of his identity. This was clearly his deepest vulnerability, the question that his entire constructed persona was designed to avoid confronting. His angry protest exposed exactly what he was most desperate to hide.
The perfect irony of the situation becomes clear when we consider Tosafot's observation that Bati may not have technically transgressed with the gentile woman because, as a slave, he was permitted such behavior. This creates a devastating psychological trap: if Shapur's reference to "what you did last night" was indeed about the comfort woman, then Bati's very actions revealed his own internal recognition of his slave status, despite all his protests about Jewish identity.
Shapur was essentially saying: "You can protest your Jewishness all you want, but your own behavior demonstrates that you know your true status." It was a brilliant exposure of self-deception - Bati's protest revealed his vulnerability, while his past behavior revealed his self-awareness of his actual position.
The Symbolic Layer: The Etrog and the Warning Against Pride
The Hidden Message
The story's symbolic dimension becomes apparent when we consider that it centers on an etrog. There is a Hasidic tradition that the Hebrew word "etrog" forms an acronym for "אל תבואני רגל גאוה" - "Let not the foot of pride come upon me" (Psalm 36:12). The very fruit that triggers this confrontation symbolically warns against the pride that has ensnared the protagonists.
Here is Bati, whose entire psychological trap stems from his arrogant refusal to acknowledge his origins, and the object that exposes his predicament carries within its very name a warning against the pride that has corrupted his spiritual development. The etrog becomes not merely food requiring ritual attention, but a symbol of the spiritual failing that defines the entire encounter.
A Symbolic Reading of Royal Theater
The symbolic interpretation can perhaps be pushed further. Shapur's theatrical plunging of the knife ten times into the ground before serving Rav Yehuda might represent a deliberate pantomime of Bati's sexual transgression from the previous night. If so, this would make Shapur's behavior not just practically cautious but deliberately provocative - a crude symbolic reenactment that went completely over Bati's head.
Bati, missing the symbolic taunt entirely, responded only to what he perceived as unfair differential treatment, triggering his defensive outburst about Jewish status. Only then did Shapur make the symbolism explicit with his reference to the previous night's activities. This reading, while speculative, would make Shapur a more psychologically sophisticated actor, orchestrating a public humiliation that exposed Bati's self-deception on multiple levels.
The Parallel Etrog Story: A Pattern of Spiritual Diagnosis
Rav Yehuda's Consistent Opposition to Arrogance
The King Shapur story gains additional meaning when we recognize it as part of a pattern. Rav Yehuda used the precise phrase "רמות רוחא" (arrogant spirit) in another context that also involved an etrog. In his confrontation with Rav Nachman, when the latter offered an etrog while calling it "etronga" (using aristocratic Aramaic rather than proper Hebrew), Rav Yehuda chastised him: "Why don't you use biblical or rabbinic language - etrog or etroga? He who says etronga displays a third of רמות רוחא."
This parallel reveals the consistency of Rav Yehuda's spiritual vision. In both cases - with Rav Nachman and with Bati - he identifies "arrogant spirit" as the fundamental problem, and in both cases the diagnosis emerges in the context of an etrog. With Rav Nachman, the arrogance manifests as linguistic influence in the aristocratic environment of the Exilarch where Rav Nachman practiced, that Rav Yehuda sees as symptomatic of broader spiritual compromise. With Bati, it appears as the deeper arrogance of constructed identity that refuses authentic acknowledgment of origins.
The Etrog as Spiritual Diagnostic Tool
The etrog becomes Rav Yehuda's recurring instrument for exposing spiritual corruption. This is not mere coincidence but reflects his understanding that the fruit itself symbolically warns against the very pride he repeatedly encounters in the representatives of the old establishment. Both Rav Nachman (connected to the Exilarchate through marriage, based in Nehardea, representing practical judicial compromise) and Bati (an agent of the Exilarchate's administrative apparatus, representing cultural accommodation) embody the kind of spiritual compromise that Rav Yehuda's ascetic vision cannot tolerate.
Conclusion: The Etrog’s Warning and the Boundaries of Identity
The encounter in King Shapur’s court, which begins with a slice of fruit, and two individuals reveals itself as the crystallization of a profound ideological struggle within Babylonian Jewry. Through the symbolic lens of the etrog—a fruit whose name tradition links to a warning against pride—we have traced a clash between two powerful visions for Jewish life in the diaspora.
Rav Yehuda’s campaign was a meticulously documented effort to assert a paradigm of uncompromising authenticity. To him, the three panels of the Talmudic triptych—the ancient corruption of Pashhur ben Immer’s priests, the fraudulent claims of Hasmonean usurpers, and the contemporary arrogance of Bati bar Tuvi—represented a singular, systemic threat: the erosion of Jewish identity through the illegitimate integration of compromised lineages into its leadership. His consistent use of the phrase *ramut ruach* (“arrogant spirit”) to diagnose both Bati’s refusal of freedom and Rav Nachman’s linguistic choices reveals a worldview where spiritual compromise, whether grand or subtle, stems from the same root of pride. In this light, the etrog becomes his perfect symbolic instrument—the very object of the confrontation also serving as the warning against the flaw it exposes.
Bati bar Tuvi stands as the ultimate embodiment of this conflict. His wounded cry—“Am I not a Jew?”—is the desperate protest of a constructed identity unraveling. He achieved the influence and wealth afforded by the accommodationist system but remained trapped by the arrogance that prevented him from securing his legitimate status. In the court of a Persian king who understood ritual scruples, Bati’s performance of Jewish identity was finally seen as lacking. He was caught between the world he served and the authenticity he could not, or would not, claim.
The etrog stories thus transcend their historical moment. They are not merely accounts of political rivalry but enduring parables about the tension between external success and internal integrity. Rav Yehuda’s severe campaign, driven by his immense spiritual stature, forces a perennial question: what are the non-negotiable boundaries of identity, and what price are we willing to pay to protect them? The narrative offers no easy answers but presents the high stakes of the dilemma. It serves as a lasting reminder that the most consequential concessions are often not made at the negotiating table with foreign powers, but within the human heart, where the foot of pride forever seeks to enter.
Appendix: Translated text of Kiddushin 70.
To properly understand this we need to quote the entire Talmudic narrative in Kiddushin 70a and 70b.
The Gemara recounts: There was a certain man from Neharde’a who entered a butcher shop in Pumbedita. He said to them: Give me meat. They said to him: Wait until the servant of Rav Yehuda bar Yeḥezkel has taken his meat, and then we will give it to you. The man said to them in anger: Who is this Yehuda bar Sheviske’el, a derogatory name for a glutton for meat, that he should precede me, that he should take before me? They went and told Rav Yehuda what the man had said. Rav Yehuda excommunicated him, in accordance with the halakha of one who disparages a Torah scholar. They also said to him that the same man was in the habit of calling people slaves. Rav Yehuda proclaimed about him that he is a slave and may not marry a Jew. That man went and summoned Rav Yehuda to judgment before Rav Naḥman, who was a judge in Neharde’a.
When the summons arrived in Pumbedita, Rav Yehuda went before Rav Huna to seek his council. Rav Yehuda said to him: Should I go or should I not go? Rav Huna said to him: As for the obligation to go, you are not required to go, since you are a great man and therefore are not under the jurisdiction of Rav Naḥman’s court. But due to the honor of the Exilarch’s house, as Rav Naḥman was the son-in-law of the Exilarch, get up and go.
Rav Yehuda arrived in Neharde’a and found Rav Naḥman constructing a parapet. Rav Yehuda said to Rav Naḥman: Does the Master not hold in accordance with that halakha that Rav Huna bar Idi says that Shmuel says: Once a person has been appointed a leader of the community, he is prohibited from performing labor before three people, so that he not belittle the honor of his position? Rav Naḥman said to him: It is merely a little fence [gundarita] that I am constructing. Rav Yehuda said to him: Is the term ma’akeh, which is written in the Torah, or the corresponding term meḥitza, which the Sages said, distasteful to you? Why do you use a term that is used by neither the Torah nor the Sages? Rav Naḥman then said to him: Let the Master sit on the bench [karfita]. Rav Yehuda said to him: Is the term safsal, which the Sages said, or the word itzteva, which common people say, distasteful to you? Why are you using uncommon terms? Rav Naḥman then said to him: Let the Master eat a citron [etronga]. Rav Yehuda said to him: This is what Shmuel says: Anyone who says etronga demonstrates one-third of a haughtiness of spirit. Why? He should either say etrog, as the Sages called it, or etroga, as common people say in Aramaic. Saying etronga is a sign of snobbery, as it was employed by the aristocratic class. He subsequently said to him: Let the Master drink a cup [anbaga] of wine. Rav Yehuda said to him: Is the term ispargus, as the Sages called it, or anpak, as common people say, distasteful to you?
Later on, Rav Naḥman said to him: Let my daughter Donag come and pour us drinks. Rav Yehuda said to him: This is what Shmuel says: One may not make use of a woman for a service such as this. Rav Naḥman replied: She is a minor. Rav Yehuda retorted: Shmuel explicitly says: One may not make use of a woman at all, whether she is an adult or a minor.
Later on, Rav Naḥman suggested: Let the Master send greetings of peace to my wife Yalta. Rav Yehuda said to him: This is what Shmuel says: A woman’s voice is considered nakedness, and one may not speak with her. Rav Naḥman responded: It is possible to send your regards with a messenger. Rav Yehuda said to him: This is what Shmuel says: One may not send greetings to a woman even with a messenger, as this may cause the messenger and the woman to relate to each other inappropriately. Rav Naḥman countered by suggesting that he send his greetings with her husband, which would remove all concerns. Rav Yehuda said to him: This is what Shmuel says: One may not send greetings to a woman at all. Yalta, his wife, who overheard that Rav Yehuda was getting the better of the exchange, sent a message to him: Release him and conclude your business with him, so that he not equate you with another ignoramus.
Desiring to release Rav Yehuda, Rav Naḥman said to him: What is the reason that the Master is here? Rav Yehuda said to him: The Master sent me a summons. Rav Naḥman said to him: Now that I have not even learned the Master’s form of speech, as you have demonstrated your superiority to me by reproving me even over such matters, could I have sent a summons to the Master? Rav Yehuda removed the summons from his bosom and showed it to him. While doing so, Rav Yehuda said to him: Here is the man and here is the document. Rav Naḥman said to him: Since the Master has come here, let him present his statement, in order that people should not say: The Sages flatter one another and do not judge each other according to the letter of the law.
Rav Naḥman commenced the deliberation, and said to him: What is the reason that the Master excommunicated that man? Rav Yehuda replied: He caused discomfort to an agent of one of the Sages, and therefore he deserved the punishment of one who causes discomfort to a Torah scholar. Rav Naḥman challenged this answer: If so, let the Master flog him, as Rav would flog one who causes discomfort to an agent of the Sages. Rav Yehuda responded: I punished him more severely than that. Rabbi Yehuda held that excommunication is a more severe punishment than flogging.
Rav Naḥman further inquired: What is the reason that the Master proclaimed about him that he is a slave? Rav Yehuda said to him: Because he is in the habit of calling people slaves, and it is taught: Anyone who disqualifies others by stating that their lineage is flawed, that is a sign that he himself is of flawed lineage. Another indication of his lineage being flawed is that he never speaks in praise of others. And Shmuel said: He disqualifies with his own flaw. Rav Naḥman retorted: You can say that Shmuel said this halakha only to the degree that one should suspect him of being of flawed lineage. But did he actually say this to the extent that one could proclaim about him that he is of flawed lineage?
The Gemara continues the story: Meanwhile, that litigant arrived from Neharde’a. That litigant said to Rav Yehuda: You call me a slave? I, who come from the house of the Hasmonean kings? Rav Yehuda said to him: This is what Shmuel says: Anyone who says: I come from the house of the Hasmonean kings, is a slave. As will be explained, only slaves remained of their descendants. י.
Rav Naḥman, who heard this exchange, said to Rav Yehuda: Does the Master not hold in accordance with this halakha that Rabbi Abba says that Rav Huna says that Rav says: With regard to any Torah scholar who proceeds to teach a ruling of halakha with regard to a particular issue, if he said it before an action that concerns himself occurred, they should listen to him, and his ruling is accepted. But if not, if he quoted the halakha only after he was involved in an incident related to the halakha he is quoting, they do not listen to him, due to his personal involvement? Your testimony with regard to what Shmuel ruled should be ignored, as you stated it only after the incident. Rav Yehuda said to Rav Naḥman: There is Rav Mattana, who stands by my report, since he has also heard this ruling of Shmuel. The girl then fell from the roof and died, leaving only slaves from the Hasmoneans.
With the confirmation of the report of the statement of Shmuel, they also publicized in Neharde’a about him, i.e., that man who claimed to come from the Hasmonean kings, that he was a slave. The Gemara relates: On that day, several marriage contracts were torn up in Neharde’a, as many had their marriages annulled after having discovered that they had married slaves.
When Rav Yehuda was leaving Neharde’a, they pursued him, seeking to stone him, as because of him it was publicized that their lineage was flawed. Rav Yehuda said to them: If you are silent, remain silent. And if you will not remain silent, I will reveal about you this statement that Shmuel said: There are two lines of offspring in Neharde’a. One is called the dove’s house, and one is called the raven’s house. And your mnemonic with regard to lineage is: The impure bird, the raven, is impure, meaning flawed, and the pure one, the dove, is pure, meaning unflawed. Upon hearing this, they threw all those stones that they were intending to stone him with from their hands, as they did not want him to reveal who had a flawed lineage. And as a result of all of the stones thrown into the river, a dam arose in the Malka River.
The Gemara continues the discussion of those with a flawed lineage: Rav Yehuda proclaimed in Pumbedita: Adda and Yonatan, known residents of that town, are slaves; Yehuda bar Pappa is a mamzer; Bati bar Tuviyya, in his arrogance, did not accept a bill of manumission and is still a slave. Rava proclaimed in his city of Meḥoza: Balla’ai, Danna’ai, Talla’ai, Malla’ai, Zagga’ai: All these families are of flawed lineage. Rav Yehuda likewise says: Gova’ai, the inhabitants of a place called Gova, are in fact Gibeonites, and their name has been corrupted. Similarly, those people known as Dorenunita are from the village of Gibeonites, and they may not marry Jews with unflawed lineage. Rav Yosef says: With regard to this place called Bei Kuvei of Pumbedita, its residents are all descendants of slaves. Rav Yehuda says that Shmuel says: Four hundred slaves, and some say four thousand slaves, were owned by Pashḥur ben Immer, a priest in the time of Jeremiah, and due to their greatness they were assimilated into the priesthood and became known as priests. And any priest who has the trait of insolence is only from them. Abaye said: They all sit in the rows of honor that are in the city of Neharde’a.
Comments
Post a Comment