my Bava Metzia fantasy conversation
Jan. 30th, 2006 12:54 am![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}
awhyzip
So Reish Lakish wins the argument, and R. Yochanan knows it.
"Fuck you, you brigand!" says R. Yochanan.
"Funny, that's just what your sister said last night..." sez Reish Lakish.
SNAP!
Tonight I went to a Hebrew College lecture that included some study of the famous story of Rabbi Yochanan and Reish Lakish. (They tell me it was famous... I never heard it before, but then again I've never studied talmud more than the tiniest smattering.) Later, I'll try to write up the passage or find a link to it for all of you without the handy class handout.
The text-study was the most interesting part of the evening for me. My hevruta-partner & I worked out an interpretation of the two men's final argument that illuminated so much in the rest of the story for me. I love it when that happens!
The key point in our interpretation was that the argument over the manufacture of blades should be read as an argument about Reish Lakish's identity-formation. He is symbolized by the forged weapons, because they undergo transformation and the story was just telling us about Reish Lakish's transformation, from highwayman to scholar. Tal had this insight. Once he said that, it became clear why this arguement became so "personal". They are talking about when did Reish Lakish become the new man he (maybe) is now.
Good, so if arguers recognize that they are debating about each other, where is R. Yochanan symbolized? Is he equally a blade? In the section just before we was that he was instrumental in re-shaping and re-forming Reish Lakish's life. So I think it is better to see him as the furnace. In other words, R. Yochanan is saying "You were made [into who you are now] when I was done with you."
Reish Lakish disagrees. R Yochanan can't take full credit for him! "The manufacture of the blade is finished when it is tempered in the water."
So, who is "the water"?
Who came after Yochanan began teaching Lakish Torah? Remember Yochanan's (outrageous to my eyes) proposal: "If you can change your ways, I'll give you my sister to marry." The sister/wife is the water! (This is very appropriate, because after all, water is so often feminine symbolism.)
This neatly doubles the amount of concept-time the sister has in this story, and also puts some nice symmetry into the themes of the 4 thematic sections we identified.
I think there is a very defensible subtext of whether or not Reish Lakish has become a worthy man, in the men's arguement. And his marriage was predicated on becoming that man, so the debate strikes very home. Could go into that more. Also some great byplay, because I certainly think that the sexual connotations of Reish's response are not accidental. It's a real answer to the question "When is the manufacture of a blade finished", but Reish would make it lewd, too. (Our translation said "finished in the water", although the Aramaic was something like "scrubbed in the water" judging by a cognate in Hebrew.) Imagining that, Yochanan's retort about that a "brigand knows his brigandry" is a condemnation of Reish's sexual past and still-dirty mind -- and thus his relationship w/ his wife -- as much or more than a comment on his knowledge of weapons.
(Certainly sex is part of the image of "brigandry" as much as daggers are, oh tell me no?)
That's the key part of what we came up with. Several other ideas can be built from that base. Might note them later; they were mostly interpolating emotions and expanding terse scenes. Also reflected on why it might be that the marriage with the sister finalized what the life-changing study with the Rabbi did not.
One last note, several people hooked on to Reish Lakish's ripost (that he is called "master/rabbi" as a rabbi same as he was as a chief highwayman) as a condemnation of the Talmudic/scholarly cohort for failing to provide the promised non-heirarchical "free exchange between equals" non-distructive idealized Eros[?] companionship.
This boggled me. Where did they get the idea that the academy promised any sort of interpersonal democratic utopia? "Non-heirarchical"??? Whose campaign-promise was that?
There are egos on the line to be threatened, there is power that can be wielded --- oh try to pretend to me that there is no power-structure to be wielded between master and student even though the student may be a teacher himself now, when all ranks are based on the acclaim of peers. Attacks on "social capital" are very real. "Structural Violence", may be the term I'm trying to bring to mind.
And our big open question was: Who won the debate over the purity of forged blades? Who won the debate of veiled allusions? Who won the open ad hominem round?
I think the answer is Reish Lakish.
![[identity profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/openid.png){kind=small}
no subject
Date: 2006-01-30 10:52 am (UTC)no subject
Date: 2006-01-30 01:50 pm (UTC)The idea (as I see it) is that Yochanan was humbled in the argument and lashed back by bringing up a reminder of Reish Lakish's past: that he (Lakish) was once once a highwayman, and would therefore know loads about edged weapons. Terribly poor form, as one isn't supposed to remind a ba`al teshuvah of his past.
I agree with you that the "free exchange among equals" interpretation it pretty far out there, given what we know about the Amoraic beit midrash.
You may be interested to know that the person who taught me this passage said that Yochanan's response ("I brought you under the wings of the Shekhinah!") doesn't show up in manuscript versions. It was probably added by someone (a printer?) who was uncomfortable with Yochanan letting Reish Lakish get in the last word.
(Eek! LJ's spell checker wants me to replace "Yochanan" with "Buchanan.")
no subject
Date: 2006-01-30 02:39 pm (UTC)Definitely, Yochanan is taking a cheap jab at Reish Lakish. Exactly as you say, he lashes out at him by bringing up his past.
But why? On my first reading, Yochanan's snarky insult seems to come totally out of left field. It is totally bad form -- a) not productive to furthering the Talmudic discussion, b) an ad hominem attack c) reminding a baal teshuva of his past (which is not supposed to be done). WHY would R Yochanan, this great Talmudic master, not be able to have a simple debate without loosing his temper?
We know from elsewhere in the story (from Yochanan's mourning complaints, and even from the first exchange when they met at the Jordan) that Reish Lakish and Yochanan disputed all the time. That's different than what we see here -- and moreover I think it would mean Yochanan should be accustomed to Reish Laskish offering contrary opinions.
That was my problem with the simple understanding that the two rabbis were just talking about blades.
no subject
Date: 2006-01-30 02:49 pm (UTC)Poor form still, but no longer out of the blue.
This interpretation also makes Reish Lakish's response of "what good did you do me?" have more resonance with the rest of the conversation. (Although it is a sequitur in either interpretation.)
re: Yochanan's response
Date: 2006-01-30 03:08 pm (UTC)The lecturer did mention that [that the line may have been added by a later editor], although we weren't aware of that when we were doing the text-study. I do think that is interesting. Thanks. I was in fact glad to hear this line might not belong. Every other line in the exchange was so sharp and crackling, this one didn't live up to them.
Whether or not it was original-text, it is LAME. Yochanan so lost if that's the best he could do. :-)
re: LJ's spell-check
Date: 2006-01-30 03:10 pm (UTC)Re: LJ's spell-check
Date: 2006-01-30 10:40 pm (UTC)Re: LJ's spell-check
Date: 2006-01-31 11:49 am (UTC)(although with Pat Buchanan you may have a winning trump-scary :-) )
no subject
Date: 2006-01-30 02:04 pm (UTC)no subject
Date: 2006-01-30 02:57 pm (UTC)I'd be glad to lend you the hand-out with the text, but I'm not sure when the next time I'll see you is since dinner plans didn't work out.