Shiur #28: Studying Torah and Family Responsibility
TALMUDIC AGGADA
By Rav Yitzchak Blau
*********************************************************
Dedicated by
the Wise and Etshalom families
in memory of Rabbi Aaron M. Wise, whose yahrzeit is 21 Tamuz.
Y'hi Zikhro Barukh.
*********************************************************
*********************************************************
In memory of our beloved father and grandfather,
Fred Stone, Ya'acov Ben Yitzchak,
whose yahrzeit will be Sunday 25 Tammuz, July 15th.
Ellen, Stanley, Jacob Chaya, Zack, Yael, Ezra, Yoni, Eliana, and Gabi Stone.
*********************************************************
Shiur 28: Studying Torah and Family Responsibility
Towards the end of R. Shimon bar Yochais wedding party, R. Chanania ben
Chakhinai was traveling to study. He (R.
Shimon) said to him: Wait for me until I can come with you. He did not wait for him. He went and learned for twelve
years. By the time he returned, the
streets of the city had changed, and he could not find his way home. He went and sat on the river bank. He heard people calling: Daughter
of Chakhinai, daughter of Chakhinai, fill your pitcher and go. He said: This must be my daughter. He followed her. His wife was sitting and kneading
dough. She raised her eyes and saw
him. Her heart was shocked and her
spirit departed. He said: Master
of the universe, is this the reward for this poor woman? He asked for mercy, and she was
revived.
R. Chama bar Bisa went and sat for twelve years in the beit midrash
(study hall). When he returned
home, he said; I will not do as the son of Chakhinai did. He went and sat in the beit
midrash. He sent a note home. R. Oshaya, his son, came to the
beit midrash, sat before him, and asked him halakhic questions. He saw that the boys learning was
very sharp and became depressed. He
said: If I had been here, I would have a child like this. He went home. His son came in, and he (the father)
stood up. He thought that the boy
had come to ask him more questions.
His wife said to him: Does a father stand up before his son? Rami bar Hama said about him: And
the threefold cord will not quickly be torn (Kohelet 4:12) this refers
to R. Oshaya the son of R. Chama bar Bisa.
(Ketubot 62b)
Do these stories portray extended time away from home for the sake of
Torah study positively or negatively?
R. Yosef Chayyim, in his Ben Yehoyada, chooses the former
interpretation. He argues that the first story reveals R. Chananias great
dedication to Torah. He refuses to
wait for R. Shimon, because he cannot stand even a minor delay in his quest for
Torah knowledge. Therefore, he
merits the swift miracle of his wifes revival.
We could read the second tale as a success story as well; despite his
fathers absence, R. Oshaya has become a Talmudic prodigy.
Prof. Yonah Frankel offers the opposite reading in his Iyunim be-Olamo
ha-Ruchani shel Sippur haAggada (pp. 100-115; the next few paragraphs
are indebted to his analysis).
Several clues in these stories confirm Prof. Frankels interpretation. The townspeople refer to R.
Chananias daughter as the child of Chakhinai (the grandfather). An absent father has been away for
so long that he played no role in his daughters upbringing.
Naturally, the townspeople start to
relate to the only paternal figure present as her father.
R. Chananias inability to seamlessly rejoin the family life also
supports Prof. Frankels reading.
He cannot simply approach his daughter after a long hiatus; he must follow her
home to first speak with his wife.
The reunion with his wife also fails because her heart cannot handle the shock
at his sudden return. The changes
in the citys infrastructure take on powerful symbolic meaning. After twelve years away, you cannot
simply go home again. His lack of
willingness to wait for R. Shimon also strikes a symbolic chord. R. Chanania does not appreciate the
domestic responsibility the seven days of celebration following the wedding
which delays R. Shimon.
Looking at parallel versions of aggadic and midrashic stories often
proves instructive. Another version
of the R. Chanania story appears in Vayikra Rabba (21:8). That account contrasts the actions
of R. Chanania with his peer in the beit midrash, R. Shimon bar Yochai. R. Shimon sends letters home from
the yeshiva, whereas R. Chanania does not.
Even when R. Chananias wife requests that he come home to help marry off
their daughter, he does not leave until his rebbe, R. Akiva, sends him home. That midrash explicitly
portrays R. Chanania in a negative light.
While one could distinguish between that midrash and the version
in Ketubot, Prof. Frankels arguments provide a solid basis for seeing R.
Chanania negatively in both accounts.
What about the second story translated above? R. Chama consciously attempts to
avoid the mistakes of R. Chanania.
Rather than shock his wife with a sudden reappearance, he first goes to the
study hall and lets his wife know that he has returned. However, his plan does not truly
address the issue. His strategy
prevents his wife from fainting, but does it compensate for the lost years with
family? R. Chama does not recognize
his own son. Even though the boy
has flourished academically without a father present, R. Chama has played no
role in his childs education. The
episodes at the study hall and at home indicate that he cannot easily step back
into the fatherly role.
Immediately following these two stories, the Talmud reports the story of
R. Akiva leaving his home for a very long period of learning. The gemara clearly endorses
R. Akivas actions, and that story has been cited to bolster dedication to Torah
for married men. Including the
preceding stories in our educational discussion introduces the need to balance
Torah study with strong commitment and devotion to family.
What distinguishes R. Akivas successful time away from home from the
difficulties of other scholars? In
R. Akivas case, the initiative for his study comes from his wife. She marries him on condition that he
become learned, and he returns to the study hall when he overhears her wish that
he continue his studies.
Presumably, a husband has more leeway to sacrifice time with his family to
pursue scholarship when he does so, at least partially, in order to please his
wife. I should also note that the
gemaras description of two sets of twelve years is likely an
exaggeration. The gemara
often uses the numbers twelve and twenty-four to symbolize a large amount (for
some examples, see Torat Chayyim Bava Metzia 84a)
Perhaps the juxtaposition of the R. Akiva episode with the other stories
highlights the need to find an appropriate balance between work or study
pursuits and family life. On
the one hand, it is quite irresponsible to avoid domestic duties and focus
solely on ones professional or scholarly goals.
Beyond the question of responsibility, family provides a healthy
perspective on the work place. When
a mechanekh starts to take his job too seriously, a walk to the park with
his eight-year-old daughter serves as an important reminder that other things
also matter in life. Teachers and
students need to leave the study hall, both in order to be integral parts of
their families, and in order to realize that life provides other rewards beyond
ones profession (especially during rougher weeks in the beit midrash.)
Conversely, a parent dare not define their existence solely in terms of
family. A mother who says that her
entire life is to be of service to her children is not doing them a favor. It likely means that she will overly
interfere in their lives and not allow them to function independently. Since her identity is solely based
on interaction with her children, she can never take a step back when necessary. It is far healthier for her to have
her own jobs, pursuits, and hobbies and also help children and grandchildren
when appropriate. This balance
enables her to experience a sense of self-worth beyond her role as the family
matriarch.
Torah study, personal achievement, and family life are all important and
indispensable goals. In the ideal
situation, these various aspirations complement one another more than they
conflict.