1. All translations are my own. I have attempted throughout to translate as literally as possible, to allow for analysis of linguistic and structural detail.

2. Hereafter referred to as PT and BT.

3. Whether or not the word hakham refers to a specific position of authority is a matter of debate. See Goodblatt, David, “'Al Sippur ha-‘Qesher’ Neged Rabban Shim'eon ben Gamali'el ha-Sheni,” Zion 49 (1984): 362–365.Google Scholar It is noteworthy that in the BT's discussion of Rabbi's choice, the word hakham seems to be used as a predicate adjective, “wise,” and not in the sense of any position. This use, however, is probably an exegetical play, as later in the discussion the BT speaks of sidrei hakhma as well as sidrei nesi 'ut. Urbach, Ephraim E., in The Sages: Their Concepts and Beliefs [Hebrew] (Jerusalem, 1971), p. 538, sees in Rabbi's testament a separation of political and academic functions, similar to that which existed in Babylonia. The BT, though, sees the patriarchate as still including the academic function; hence the puzzlement over Rabbi's choice of his less wise son as patriarch.Google Scholar

4. For examples of challenges to the patriarch, see Baumgarten, Albert, “The Akiban Opposition, ” Hebrew Union College Annual 50 (1979): 179–197Google Scholar, and “Rabbi Judah I and His Opponents, ” Journal for the Study of Judaism 12 (1981): 135–172; Beer, Moshe, “Kavod u-Vikoret,” Proceedings of the American Academy for Jewish Research 38–39 (1970–1971): 47–57;Google ScholarLevine, Lee I., The Rabbinic Class in Palestine During the Talmudic Period [Hebrew] (Jerusalem, 1985), pp. 126–128.Google Scholar

5. For comparisons of the Palestinian and Babylonian versions of this story using methods different from my own primarily literary analysis, see Ginzberg, Louis, Perushim ve-Chidushim bi-Yrushalmi, vol. 3 (New York, 1941), pp. 174–220Google Scholar, and Goldenberg, Robert, “The Deposition of Rabban Gamaliel II: An Examination of the Sources,” Journal of Jewish Studies 23 (1972): 167–190. I will be less concerned with how the differences between the versions came about than with how they function within the framework of each narrative version.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

6. The lettering of the sections of the PT narrative indicates parallels to the sections of the BT narrative.

7. Lit. “ ‘Stand,’ and he stood” —as R. Joshua had been forced to do.

8. I have translated Rosh Hashana and Bekhorot as referring to the tractates by those names in which similar stories of R. Joshua's humiliation by R. Gamaliel appear (mRosh Hashana 2:8–9 and bBekhorot 36a). See Goldenberg, “Deposition of Rabban Gamaliel II,” p. 172. They may, however, refer to the issues under controversy.

9. Isaiah Gafni discusses the variant denimlikh and its equivalence to the phrase in the printed text in “Yeshiva and Metivta” [Hebrew], Zion 43 (1978): 32.

10. Epstein, Y. N.Mevo'otle-Sifrut ha-Tanna'im(Jerusalem and TelAviv, 1964), pp.422–425, discusses the meaning of the phrase “on that day,” suggesting that it should not be understood literally. Ephraim E. Urbach suggests that the phrase here translated “'Eduyot was studied on that day” means that “testimonies” beginning with the words “on that day” were taught on that very day; see his ”Class-Status and Leadership in the World of the Palestinian Sages,” Proceedings of the Israel Academy of Sciences and Humanities 2 (1968): 59 n. The notion that Tractate 'Eduyot was, for the purposes of this narrative, taught on the day the rabbis took over and opened up the bet midrash is enticing in view of the tractate's traditional agenda of resolving—or at least freezing—rampant controversy (t'eduyot 1:1) as well as of the tractate's affirmation of respect for dissenters and the inclusion of all of Israel ('Eduyot 1:4; 8:7).Google Scholar

11. For a discussion of the meaning of this term in Palestinian sources and a citation of earlier literature on this subject, see Garni, “Yeshiva and Metivta,” pp. 17–20

12. For the relationship between the two versions, see Goldenberg, “Deposition of Rabban Gamaliel II,” p. 188, and Cohen, Shaye J. D., “Patriarchs and Scholars,” Proceedings of the American Academy for Jewish Research 48 (1981): 84–85CrossRefGoogle Scholar

13. Chiastic structure has been shown to be a feature of many ancient and classical texts. For some examples of chiasm in biblical texts, see Cassuto, Umberto, A Commentary on the Book of Genesis: From Noah to Abraham, trans. Abrahams, Israel (Jerusalem, 1964);Google ScholarFishbane, Michael, Text and Texture (New York, 1979);Google ScholarMilgrom, Jacob, The JPS Torah Commentary: Numbers (Philadelphia, 1990);Google ScholarRendsburg, Gary A., The Redaction of Genesis (Winona Lake, Minn., 1986)Google Scholar; Steinmetz, Devora, From Father to Son: Kinship, Conflict, and Continuity in Genesis (Louisville, Ky., 1991)Google Scholar. A number of scholars have noted chiasm in rabbinic texts; see, for example, Cohen, Norman J., “Structural Analysis of a Talmudic Story: Joseph-Who-Honors-the-Sabbath,” Jewish Quarterly Review 72 (1982): 161–177CrossRefGoogle Scholar, and Fraenkel, Jonah, Darkhei ha-'Aggada veha-Midrash (Jerusalem, 1991), pp. 263–269 and 307Google Scholar.Whether chiastic form itself has meaning, at least in some cases, other than the obvious resolution of the first part of the narrative in the second part, is an interesting question. I have suggested that there is a specific meaning in the chiastic structure of the patriarchal narratives in Genesis; see From Father to Son, pp. 60–87. Chiasm might be seen as a particularly appropriate form for the Berakhot narrative, given the centrality of the motif of inside and outside discussed below. (Note that, as indicated below, while we at first might expect a structure of the form A B C D E F G H A ' B '..., with the first part of the second half of the narrative replicating the kind of dissension with which the narrative begins, we find, instead, the structure A B C D E F G H G' F'..., with the first part of the second half of the narrative signaling a sharp departure from the events at the beginning of the narrative; once again, this time on a structural level, the inside is not like the outside, as the very inside of the narrative, segment [H], makes clear!) Compare, in this regard, the story in bBava Batra 8a, mentioned by Fraenkel in his discussion of chiasm, in which Rabbi initially opens his stores of food to scholars but closes them to 'amei ha 'aretz; he finally opens his storehouse when he is challenged by a scholar posing as an 'am ha 'aretz and is shown his error by his son Shimeon.

14. In some versions, this does not appear at the end of the passage.

15. Neusner, Jacob, A History of the Jews in Babylonia, vol. 3 (Leiden, 1968), p. 196, notes the frequent use of “military terminology” for “the academic discourse.” Here, however, the term seems especially apt for its context of conflict within the bet midrash. For a discussion of the term translated here as “shield-bearers,” see Ginzberg, Perushim ve-Chidushim, p. 175Google Scholar

16. See Ginzberg, Perushim ve-Chidushim, pp. 193–197, for a discussion of which office is in question here and, especially, in the Palestinian version. Ginzberg does not differentiate between the two versions on this point; he sees the problem as historical, not as a matter of narrative emphasis.

17. For a comparison of this requirement and of other elements of the narrative with aspects of the philosophical schools of Athens, see Cohen, “Patriarchs and Scholars,” pp. 75–79. Cohen's article, pp. 57–85, analyzes the Ketubot passage cited above as well as segments of the Berakhot narrative

18. Goldenberg, “Deposition of Rabban Gamaliel II,” p. 183, suggests that this “episode replaces the earlier hostility towards R. Gamaliel with patronizing condescension... he meant well.”

19. Compare, for example, the washerman who appears at the time of Rabbi's death in pKetubot 12:3, 35a and bKetubot 103b and the washermen in bNedraim 41a and bBava Batra 8a.

20. Ironically, though, the doors are locked by R. Aqiva in the face of R. Gamaliel's “servants,” again raising the issue of inside/outside and of the exclusiveness and boundaries of communities. See below, n. 28 concerning R. Aqiva's role in this and related talmudic stories. Interestingly, it is R. Aqiva, not the new leaders of the bet midrash, who declares that the doors are now to be shut.

21. SeeGoldenberg, , “Deposition of Rabban Gamaliel II,” p. 182. Ginzberg, Perushim ve-Chidushim, pp. 187–189, suggests that the numbers in the PT are an elaboration of the words “all the people” in the baraita.Google Scholar

22. Of course, “Since it is thus” may be, as in the PT, simply a statement of R. Gamaliel's resignation to the taking of power by the rabbis who have deposed him and appointed R. Elazar b. Azaria. Goldenberg, “Deposition of Rabban Gamaliel II,” p. 174, n. 49, reads it this way, but he takes the mishna from Yadaim to be an interpolation. Note that I am analyzing the narrative in the final form which it takes in the BT, in comparison with its form in the PT.

23. Goldenberg, “Deposition of Rabban Gamaliel II,” p. 176, notes this anomaly and draws a similar conclusion

24. For a brief discussion of the passage and its parallels, see Heinemann, Joseph, “The Proem in the Aggadic Midrashim,” Scripta Hierosolymitana 22 (1971): 114–116.Google Scholar

25. Goldenberg, “Deposition of Rabban Gamaliel II,” pp. 175 and 186, notes the more “political” nature of the conflict in the PT.

26. Kimelman, Reuven discusses the enduring power of the priestly class after the destruction of the Second Temple in “The Conflict Between the Priestly Oligarchy and the Sages in the Talmudic Period” [Hebrew], Zion 48 (1983): 135–148Google Scholar

27. Alon, Gedalyahu, Toldot ha-Yehudim be-'Eretz Yisra'el bi-Tqufat ha-Mishna veha-Talmud (Tel Aviv, 1971) p. 200, and Goldenberg, “Deposition of Rabban Gamaliel II,” p. 182.Google Scholar

28. In the PT, R. Aqiva is mentioned as a possible messenger to remove R. Elazar b. Azaria from his office, while, in the BT, R. Aqiva attempts to protect the new leadership from the messenger. R. Aqiva's role in the PT fits in with his negative reaction to R. Elazar b. Azaria's appointment and his recognition that the young scholar has been appointed for dynastic reasons. The involvement of R. Aqiva in these and related narrative justifies further study. See, for example, R. Aqiva's role in the story about R. Joshua and R. Gamaliel in mRosh Hashana 2:8–9 and his role in the story of Achnai's stove (bBava Metzia 59b), involving a conflict between R. Aqiva's two teachers, R. Eliezer and R. Joshua, and between R. Eliezer and the patriarch. It is noteworthy that, in the latter story, R. Gamaliel's death after a scholar is excluded from the community when he dissents from the rabbinic consensus comes about, according to one of the story's endings, from a confusion about when rosh chodesh falls, the very issue at stake in R.Gamaliel's disagreement with R. Joshua in mRosh Hashana

29. The rhetorical question about the living and the dead appears as well in one of the accounts of conflict between R. Joshua and R. Gamaliel mentioned in the Babylonian narrative; see bBekhorot 36a.

30. It is interesting that R. Aqiva does not respond to the content of R. Joshua's message; he responds, simply, to the fact that R. Joshua has been appeased.

31. In the Palestinian parallels, pShabbat 10:5, 12c and Pesiqta de-Rav Kahane, ed. Buber, p. 94b, while R. Elazar is portrayed as a greater scholar than Rabbi, the contrast between the two scholars, and between their fathers, seems to be based on deeds as well, to a degree greater than in the BT. In Pesiqta de-Rav Kahane, especially, the metaphor of the vessel is explained by R. Elazar's deeds alone; in the PT the metaphor is not explained at all. Once again, it is the BT which emphasizes the challenge based on scholarship.

32. Baumgarten, in “Akiban Opposition,” discusses the intercalation story in pHagiga 3:1, 78d and hypothesizes an anti-patriarchal party of which R. Shimeon b. Yohai was an important member.

33. Goodblatt, “‘Al Sippur ha-'Qesher’,” pp. 349–374, discusses these two passages and suggests that the version in bHorayot is a Babylonian creation not to be treated as evidence of a historical event. SeeBuchler, Adolph, “The Conspiracy of R. Nathan and R. Meir Against the Patriarch R. Shimeon b. Gamaliel,” in Studies in Jewish History, ed. Brodie, I. and Rabinowitz, J. (Oxford, 1956), pp. 160–177, for a discussion of this story and its relationship to some other challenges to the patriarch.Google Scholar

34. It is fascinating that the statement about increasing in holiness but not decreasing appears or is echoed in both versions of this story as well as in two of the other stories at which we have looked. The statement appears in pBikurim and is echoed in R. Meir's refusal to heed the message of the dream in bHorayot. The statement appears as well in the conclusion of the deposition narrative in bBerakhot and in the conclusion of the story about Rabbi and R. Elazar b. R. Shimeon's wife in Pesiqta de-Rav Kahane.

35. Neusner, , History of the Jews in Babylonia, vol. 1 (1965), pp. 73–80,Google Scholar sees this story as revealing a political conflict between the Babylonian R. Nathan and the pro-Roman patriarch. I am concerned rather with what the story itself presents as the problem in the bet midrash—in Robert Goldenberg's words, “the reality...of the teller, not the subject of the tale.” Goldenberg sees the story about R. Shimeon b. Gamaliel as reflecting a concern for Torah as opposed to hereditary authority, since the patriarch himself belittles R. Nathan's hereditary claim, while he sees the story about R. Gamaliel, in both the PT and BT, as validating the hereditary claim to a position of authority. See“History and Ideology in Talmudic Narrative,” in Approaches to Ancient Judaism, ed. Green, William Scott, vol. 4 (1983), pp. 159–171. It seems to me that both Babylonian stories accept the hereditary claim after all, R. Shimeon b. Gamaliel does stay in office despite his lack of knowledge, and R. Gamaliel appeals to the honor of bis father in order to regain his office but that both overlay this with a concern for the patriarch as scholar and head of the academy.Google Scholar

36. Compare, however, the more explicit stories of challenges to Rabbi's authority by R. Hiyya or his sons: for example, pKil'ayim 9:4, 32c = pKetubot 12:3, 35a and bSanhedrin 38a. See Buchler, “Conspiracy of R. Nathan and R. Meir,” pp. 176–177.

37. SeeGafhi, Isaiah, “ ‘Shevet u-Mechoqeq’ 'Al Defusei Manhigut Chadashim bi-Tkufat ha-Talmud,” in Kehuna u-Mlukha: Yachasei Dat u-Medina be-Yisra'el uv-'amim, ed. Isaiah, Gafhi and Gavriel, Motzkin (Jerusalem: Merkaz Zalman Shazar, 1987), pp. 79–91. Gafhi points out the BT's discomfort with the notion of succession in the realm of Torah leadership and the relationship of this stance to the reality of Babylonian institutions: while the exilarchate was dynastic, the position of resh metivta was not.Google Scholar