![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}
magidYesterday morning I went to a lecture by Rabbanit Henkin (dean of Nishmat), at Young Israel in Brookline. She spoke about Bruria.
(Note: much of the translation of Gemara taken from the Jewish Virtual Library, specifically the Talmud section (I'd never get this written up else!).)
She introduced Bruriah with a few of the stories about her and her family (Tractate Avoda Zara, 18a).
(further down the same page) And it is also known that not only R. Hanina was killed by the Romans for his flouting of their decrees against Torah study so publicly, but his wife was also sentenced to death, and one of his daughters was sentenced to prostitution.
And while this detailed story about Bruria's sister is included in the text, there is nothing about what "that which happened to Bruria," neither here nor in any of the other places Bruria is mentioned in Gemara.
Rashi (11th c. French commentator on Gemara) brings the explanation that Bruria once mocked the dictum of the Sages that "women's minds are light" (as in, not designed for serious study; not worth going into all the issues with this just now), and her husband said that she would regret her words. He commanded one of his students to seduce her, and after many days she acceded. When the situation became known to her, she strangled herself, and R. Mair was [drat; I'm blanking on words; it's negative, of course].
This is the famous story about her. But looked at closely, it has a lot of holes. Firstly, it is bizarre that R. Mair would want to destroy his marriage (and his student) just to put his wife 'in her place,' especially by putting a stumbling block before the blind. It also makes no sense to do this as a result of what she said; the appropriate thing would have been to debate her, or learn with her, something like that, since the question is one of her intellect. And it's bizarre that she would kill herself, since that, too, is forbidden. Why wouldn't she just have gone to her husband the first time the student came on to her? Compared with the previous story about being concerned for Bruria's sister, and the lengths to which R. Mair goes to rescue her, the characters of R. Mair and Bruria in this story just doesn't match the one in that.
It is interesting that no one before Rashi brings this story anywhere. And it's two centuries until the story appears again, when the Menorat Hamaor (14th century; Ner 1, Klal 2, Halek 3, end of chapter 6)) cites the Rashi. There is another citation about that time, in the Shu'T of the Maharil (sif 199), where he discusses how her end is like her beginning, where she disregarded the dictum about women's intellect and was betrayed by her smarts; similarly, Shlomo haMelech disregarded the strictures set on a king (about the size of armies and numbers of wives), and that led to his downfall. (Not bad, compared to Solomon!)
(There are other commentators on the Rashi who try to mitigate the impact, saying that R. Meir took his student's place when the time came to do the deed, or that R. Meir chose a student he knew was impotent. These seem weak apologetics.]
There are a number of places where Bruria is mentioned in Gemara which can illuminate her character more.
In Tosefta Keilim, Bava Metzia, chapter 1, halacha 6, there is a disagreement between R. Tarfon and the other sages, and Bruria is cited as having a middle position between them, with her opinion being lauded by R. Yehuda. Also in Tosefta Keilim, Bava Kama, chapter 4, halacha 17, there is a disagreement in halacha between Bruria and her brother, and the halacha follows Bruria.
In Brachot 10a, there's the story of R. Meir praying that some sinners be killed, and Bruria chastises him, saying he should pray for the sins to be ended, not the people, that they should repent of their errors (it's a nice linguistic twist in the Hebrew).
All of these stories show a woman who is learned, a bit caustic, perhaps, but not at all like the woman who succumbs to enticement, then kills herself.
R. Henkin, in Bnei Banim, part 4, maamar 4, heara 4, suggests that the seduction story is, in fact, an error. It is unlikely R. Meir would deliberately set a stumbling block like this, especially not with such high stakes. A story like this is shocking, and it hardly seems likely that it would not have been cited before Rashi were it true. He suggests that it is a story that got attached to Bruria's name, rather like a story about Moshe, which was originally told about Aristotle, then morphed as it moved.
It is easy to have transcription errors when one is hand copying manuscripts. And interestingly, the first whole extant copy of Rashi (dating to the 13th century) does not have the Bruria story. The Tosefot who comment on every other Rashi on that page are silent on this (which is inconclusive, but a supporting piece of evidence). (Two sources about possible transmittion errors: Rashi on Kritut 4, dibur hamatchil "v'hacha b'he kamepligei, etc"; Sefer haYashar l'Rabbenu Tam, chalek haHidushin, siman 315.)
There is another interesting source on our question of Bruria, Rabenu Nisim b'R. Yaakov, Hibur Yafeh Mehayeshua, amud 30, where he says that R. Meir fled, taking his wife and all his stuff, and went to Iraq. Which means she was alive to take with, which implies that the whole seducing student scenario didn't happen (at least, R. Nisim didn't think so).
There are other shocking stories in Gemara, and they are brought with details; the Gemara is not squeamish. For instance, the story about a rabbi (one place it's Ravena (Psachim 112b), another place (Brachot 8b) its Rava) forbidding his sons to sit on the bed of an Amorite woman, because of what happened to R. Papa. What happened to him? There are different versions, all involving an Amorite woman who owed R. Papa money, and the death of her child. In one version, she kills the child, and gets him to wait for her long enough that she frames him for the murder, so he flees (voiding her debt)(explicated in the Rashi on Psachim). In the other, she's storing the corpse of her child under her bed. Perhaps this story morphed towards the Bruria story.
In the end, Rabbanit Henkin reviewed all the supporting evidence, and suggested that Bruria and R. Meir be rehabilitated. They may have had their problems, but setting up an adultery is not one of them. Similarly, while Bruria was a singular woman of her time, the rabbis respected her, and were not out to put her 'in her place' (which this story has been used to suggest).
It feels right to me, and I'm glad to have Bruria untarnished!
How can it take so much longer to transcribe notes from a lecture than the lecture itself took?
(Note: much of the translation of Gemara taken from the Jewish Virtual Library, specifically the Talmud section (I'd never get this written up else!).)
She introduced Bruriah with a few of the stories about her and her family (Tractate Avoda Zara, 18a).
The rabbis taught: When R. Jose b. Kisma became sick, R. Hanina b. Tradian [father of Bruriah] called on him; the former said to him: Hanina, my brother, are you not aware that this nation is reigning by heavenly decree, and notwithstanding that she has destroyed the Temple, burned the palaces, killed the pious and put out of the way all the best of Israel, she is still in force. About you, however, I heard that notwithstanding the decree of the government, you occupy yourself with the Torah publicly, and you bear with you the Holy Scrolls at all time. Hanina then answered: The heavens shall have mercy with us. Exclaimed Jose: I am relating to you reasons, and you say, the heavens shall have mercy. I wonder whether the government will not burn you with the Holy Scrolls on fire?
...
It was said that a few days later R. Jose ben Kisma departed, and all the great men of Rome were going after his coffin, lamenting him greatly. On their return, they found Hanina b. Tradian studying the Torah publicly with the Holy Scrolls in his bosom; he was enwrapped in the Holy Scrolls and surrounded with branches of trees, which were kindled. And two woollen towels, soaked in water, were placed on his heart that his soul might not depart so quickly, and when his daughter said to him: Father, is it just, what I see done with you? He answered: If I were burned alone, it would be hard for me, but now that I am burned in conjunction with the Holy Scrolls, I am sure that He who will take revenge for the Holy Scrolls will take revenge for me also.
(further down the same page) And it is also known that not only R. Hanina was killed by the Romans for his flouting of their decrees against Torah study so publicly, but his wife was also sentenced to death, and one of his daughters was sentenced to prostitution.
Bruria, the wife of R. Mair, was a daughter of Hanina b. Tradian, and she said to her husband: It is a disgrace for me that my sister should be in the house of prostitution. He then took with him a [bag] full with dinars, [...] and went to her guardian asking him to accept the money he brought for transferring her to him, saying: The half of the dinars will be sufficient to bribe the officers of the government, and the other half will remain for you. And to his question: What should I do when the half will be spent and they will still persecute me? he answered: You will then say, God of Mair, help me, and you will be saved. And whence do I know that so it is? Mair answered: I will convince you immediately. There were dogs who devoured people, and the guard set them upon Mair, and he pronounced God of Mair, answer me, and they kept aloof from him. The guard then delivered to Mair his sister-in-law. Finally, the government got wind of it, and the guardian was brought to the gallows to be hanged, and as soon as he pronounced, God of Mair, help me, he was thrown down uninjured. And to the question, What is it? he related before all what happened. The government then engraved the picture of R. Mair on the gate of Rome, commanding that he who should see such a face should deliver him to the officers. It happened that he was once seen, and they ran after him; he then ran away to a place of prostitution [...]. The officers then said that it must be someone else, as Mair would not do so. Thereafter, Mair ran away to Babylon, according to some, because of this occasion, and according to others, because of that which happened to Bruria.
And while this detailed story about Bruria's sister is included in the text, there is nothing about what "that which happened to Bruria," neither here nor in any of the other places Bruria is mentioned in Gemara.
Rashi (11th c. French commentator on Gemara) brings the explanation that Bruria once mocked the dictum of the Sages that "women's minds are light" (as in, not designed for serious study; not worth going into all the issues with this just now), and her husband said that she would regret her words. He commanded one of his students to seduce her, and after many days she acceded. When the situation became known to her, she strangled herself, and R. Mair was [drat; I'm blanking on words; it's negative, of course].
This is the famous story about her. But looked at closely, it has a lot of holes. Firstly, it is bizarre that R. Mair would want to destroy his marriage (and his student) just to put his wife 'in her place,' especially by putting a stumbling block before the blind. It also makes no sense to do this as a result of what she said; the appropriate thing would have been to debate her, or learn with her, something like that, since the question is one of her intellect. And it's bizarre that she would kill herself, since that, too, is forbidden. Why wouldn't she just have gone to her husband the first time the student came on to her? Compared with the previous story about being concerned for Bruria's sister, and the lengths to which R. Mair goes to rescue her, the characters of R. Mair and Bruria in this story just doesn't match the one in that.
It is interesting that no one before Rashi brings this story anywhere. And it's two centuries until the story appears again, when the Menorat Hamaor (14th century; Ner 1, Klal 2, Halek 3, end of chapter 6)) cites the Rashi. There is another citation about that time, in the Shu'T of the Maharil (sif 199), where he discusses how her end is like her beginning, where she disregarded the dictum about women's intellect and was betrayed by her smarts; similarly, Shlomo haMelech disregarded the strictures set on a king (about the size of armies and numbers of wives), and that led to his downfall. (Not bad, compared to Solomon!)
(There are other commentators on the Rashi who try to mitigate the impact, saying that R. Meir took his student's place when the time came to do the deed, or that R. Meir chose a student he knew was impotent. These seem weak apologetics.]
There are a number of places where Bruria is mentioned in Gemara which can illuminate her character more.
(Psachim 62b)
R. Simlai came to R. Johanan and said to him, "Let Master teach me the contents of the book of ancestry," and R. Johanan asked him: "Whence art thou?" He replied: "From Lydda," "And where dost thou reside?" asked R. Johanan. "In Neherdai," was the reply. R. Johanan then remarked: "The contents of the book of ancestry must not be taught to inhabitants of Lydda or Neherdai, and so much the more thou, who art born in Lydda and residest in Neherdai, shouldst certainly not be taught." R. Simlai, however, was persistent, and persuaded R. Johanan to grant his request, whereupon R. Simlai remarked: "Thou canst teach me the contents of that book in three months." So R. Johanan picked up a clod of soil and threw it at R. Simlai, saying: "If Bruria, the wife of R. Meir, who was also the daughter of R. Hanina ben Tharadion, and who could learn three hundred Halakhas from three hundred great men in one day, could still not master the contents of the book of ancestry in three years, wouldst thou then learn it in three months?"
In Tosefta Keilim, Bava Metzia, chapter 1, halacha 6, there is a disagreement between R. Tarfon and the other sages, and Bruria is cited as having a middle position between them, with her opinion being lauded by R. Yehuda. Also in Tosefta Keilim, Bava Kama, chapter 4, halacha 17, there is a disagreement in halacha between Bruria and her brother, and the halacha follows Bruria.
(Eruvin 53b)
R. Jose the Galilean was travelling on the road. He met Bruria (the wife of R. Meir) and asked her: "Which way must we take to the city of Lud?" She answered: "Thou Galilean fool! Did not our sages say, that thou shouldst not converse much with a woman? Thou shouldst have asked, which way to Lud?"
The same Bruria once found a young scholar learning quietly to himself. She scolded him and said: "It is written [II Samuel xxiii. 5]: 'Firm in all and sure,' which signifies, that if the Law is firmly imbedded in all the two hundred and forty-eight members of the body it can remain with the man, otherwise it can not."
In Brachot 10a, there's the story of R. Meir praying that some sinners be killed, and Bruria chastises him, saying he should pray for the sins to be ended, not the people, that they should repent of their errors (it's a nice linguistic twist in the Hebrew).
All of these stories show a woman who is learned, a bit caustic, perhaps, but not at all like the woman who succumbs to enticement, then kills herself.
R. Henkin, in Bnei Banim, part 4, maamar 4, heara 4, suggests that the seduction story is, in fact, an error. It is unlikely R. Meir would deliberately set a stumbling block like this, especially not with such high stakes. A story like this is shocking, and it hardly seems likely that it would not have been cited before Rashi were it true. He suggests that it is a story that got attached to Bruria's name, rather like a story about Moshe, which was originally told about Aristotle, then morphed as it moved.
It is easy to have transcription errors when one is hand copying manuscripts. And interestingly, the first whole extant copy of Rashi (dating to the 13th century) does not have the Bruria story. The Tosefot who comment on every other Rashi on that page are silent on this (which is inconclusive, but a supporting piece of evidence). (Two sources about possible transmittion errors: Rashi on Kritut 4, dibur hamatchil "v'hacha b'he kamepligei, etc"; Sefer haYashar l'Rabbenu Tam, chalek haHidushin, siman 315.)
There is another interesting source on our question of Bruria, Rabenu Nisim b'R. Yaakov, Hibur Yafeh Mehayeshua, amud 30, where he says that R. Meir fled, taking his wife and all his stuff, and went to Iraq. Which means she was alive to take with, which implies that the whole seducing student scenario didn't happen (at least, R. Nisim didn't think so).
There are other shocking stories in Gemara, and they are brought with details; the Gemara is not squeamish. For instance, the story about a rabbi (one place it's Ravena (Psachim 112b), another place (Brachot 8b) its Rava) forbidding his sons to sit on the bed of an Amorite woman, because of what happened to R. Papa. What happened to him? There are different versions, all involving an Amorite woman who owed R. Papa money, and the death of her child. In one version, she kills the child, and gets him to wait for her long enough that she frames him for the murder, so he flees (voiding her debt)(explicated in the Rashi on Psachim). In the other, she's storing the corpse of her child under her bed. Perhaps this story morphed towards the Bruria story.
In the end, Rabbanit Henkin reviewed all the supporting evidence, and suggested that Bruria and R. Meir be rehabilitated. They may have had their problems, but setting up an adultery is not one of them. Similarly, while Bruria was a singular woman of her time, the rabbis respected her, and were not out to put her 'in her place' (which this story has been used to suggest).
It feels right to me, and I'm glad to have Bruria untarnished!
How can it take so much longer to transcribe notes from a lecture than the lecture itself took?
no subject
Date: 2008-11-04 09:51 pm (UTC)no subject
Date: 2008-11-05 06:06 am (UTC)