Gittin, Daf Vav, Part 5

 

Introduction

Abaye now defends Rabbi Evyatar after his authority was questioned by R. Yosef in yesterday s sugya.

 

אֲמַר לֵיהּ אַבָּיֵי אַטּוּ כֹּל דְּלָא יָדַע הָא דְּרַבִּי יִצְחָק לָאו גַּבְרָא רַבָּה הוּא

בִּשְׁלָמָא מִילְּתָא דְתַלְיָא בִּסְבָרָא לְחַיֵּי הָא גְּמָרָא הִיא וּגְמָרָא לָא שְׁמִיעַ לֵיהּ

 

Abaye said to him: Is everyone who does not know [the statement] of R. Yitzchak not a great man?

This would make sense if this was an issue of reasoning. But this is a tradition and he had not learned this tradition.

 

Just because Rabbi Evyatar does not know that R. Yitzchak said that one may not write three words without scoring the lines into the parchment does not mean that the former is not a reliable authority. Perhaps he simply did not hear R. Yitzchak s statement?

As an aside we can see here a perpetual debate among Talmudic sages which is preferable: memory or reason? To Rav Yosef, the fact that Rabbi Evyatar does not know a tradition undermines his authority. In contrast, Abaye thinks that a sage s authority is connected to his power of reason, not his brute memory.

 

וְעוֹד הָא רַבִּי אֶבְיָתָר הוּא דְּאַסְכֵּים מָרֵיהּ עַל יְדֵיהּ דִּכְתִיב וַתִּזְנֶה עָלָיו פִּילַגְשׁוֹ רַבִּי אֶבְיָתָר אָמַר זְבוּב מָצָא לָהּ רַבִּי יוֹנָתָן אָמַר נִימָא מָצָא לָהּ

וְאַשְׁכְּחֵיהּ רַבִּי אֶבְיָתָר לְאֵלִיָּהוּ אֲמַר לֵיהּ מַאי קָא עָבֵיד הַקָּדוֹשׁ בָּרוּךְ הוּא אֲמַר לֵיהּ עָסֵיק בְּפִילֶגֶשׁ בַּגִּבְעָה

 

Furthermore, Rabbi Evyatar is the one whom his master (God) agreed with, as it is written, And his concubine went away from him (Judges 19:2). Rabbi Evyatar said: He found a fly in his food. R. Yonatan said he found a hair.

And Rabbi Evyatar found Elijah. He said to him: What is the Holy One, Blessed be He, doing? He said to him: He is studying the episode of the concubine in Givah.

 

Abaye now brings a strange story that also bolsters R. Evyatar s reputation. The portion of Judges they are discussing is the violent passage known as the concubine in Givah. The plot begins with a concubine leaving her man. The rabbis assume that the man sent her away and debate what caused him to send her away. According to Rabbi Evyatar the man found a fly in the food that she prepared for him (reminds me of the famous Grover sketch Waiter, there is a fly in my soup ). According to R. Yonatan, he found a hair (below they explain this to be a pubic hair. Evidently, it was common for women to shave their pubic hair in these times).

Rabbi Evyatar now stumbles across Elijah the prophet, who relates to him that at this moment God is studying this very passage in the Bible (yes, God studies!).

 

וּמַאי קָאָמַר אֲמַר לֵיהּ אֶבְיָתָר בְּנִי כָּךְ הוּא אוֹמֵר יוֹנָתָן בְּנִי כָּךְ הוּא אוֹמֵר

 

And what is he saying? He said to him: Evyatar, my son, says thus, and Yonatan, my son, says thus.

 

God, according to Elijah, is reciting the rabbinic dispute from above! [This is an excellent example of the rabbis imagining God engaging in the very occupation in which they engage biblical interpretation. God even defers to the rabbis, quoting their traditions!].

 

אֲמַר לֵיהּ חַס וְשָׁלוֹם וּמִי אִיכָּא סְפֵיקָא קַמֵּי שְׁמַיָּא

אֲמַר לֵיהּ אֵלּוּ וָאֵלּוּ דִּבְרֵי אֱלֹהִים חַיִּים הֵן זְבוּב מָצָא וְלֹא הִקְפִּיד נִימָא מָצָא וְהִקְפִּיד

אָמַר רַב יְהוּדָה זְבוּב בַּקְּעָרָה וְנִימָא בְּאוֹתוֹ מָקוֹם זְבוּב מְאִיסוּתָא וְנִימָא סַכַּנְתָּא

אִיכָּא דְּאָמְרִי אִידֵּי וְאִידֵּי בַּקְּעָרָה זְבוּב אוּנְסָא וְנִימָא פְּשִׁיעוּתָא

 

He (Rabbi Evyatar) said to him (Elijah): Heaven forbid that God should have any doubts?

He said back: Both are the words of the living God. He found a fly and he was not angry. He found a hair and he was angry.

R. Yehudah said: He found a fly in a dish and a hair in that place. The fly was disgusting, but the hair was dangerous.

There are those who say: Both were found in a dish. The fly was not something in her control, but the hair was negligence.

 

Rabbi Evyatar does not understand how God can debate what actually happened as Joseph Heller said, God Knows!

Elijah responds that God was saying that both happened, but that the man sent away his concubine after finding the hair, but not after finding the fly. There are two explanations for why he was angrier about the hair then the fly. The first is that while the fly in the food was disgusting, the pubic hair was dangerous. Rashi explains that a pubic hair could lead to damage to the man s genitals (I know). The second explanation is that while the fly could get into the soup without her even noticing, a hair in the soup is a sign of negligence and therefore will more likely lead to anger.

In any case, this story confirms that God ultimately agreed with Rabbi Evyatar s interpretation of the biblical passage. Abaye has defended Rabbi Evyatar s authority.