2020/5780
In a celebrated Talmudic passage featuring a claim of bias levelled against the Almighty by the Gentile nations, Rabi Meir issues a striking ruling: “Hayah Rabi Meir Omeir Minayim She’Afilu Oveid Kochavim Ve’Oseik BaTorah SheHu KeKohein Gadol Talmud Lomar Asher Ya’aseh Otam Ha’Adam VaChai Bahem Kohanim Levi’im VeYisraelim Lo Ne’emar Ela Ha’Adam1 Ha Lamadeta She’Afilu Oveid Kochavim Ve’Oseik BaTorah Harei Hu KeKohein Gadol.”2 “Rabi Meir would say: From where do we derive that even an idolator who toils in the study of Torah is like the High Priest? Scripture says, ‘That a man shall do them and live by them;’ ‘Priests,’ ‘Levites,’ and ‘Israelites’ were not mentioned; but rather, ‘man.’ From this you learn that even an idolator who toils in the Torah is like the High Priest.” There is much to be said concerning this passage. First, and most important, Rabi Meir appears to advocate not only study of Torah for Gentiles, but more significantly, the kind of intensive study implied by the term Oseik, as opposed to alternatives such as Korei, Shoneh, or Lomeid. Second, Rabi Meir does not appear to restrict the scope of this learning to a particular corpus. Third, Rabi Meir not only legitimates Gentile study of the Torah, but, of far greater significance, portrays it as having enormous spiritual impact, bringing one to the level of the Kohein Gadol. Even assuming that the effect of the appellation is by nature somewhat euphemistic,3 or even hyperbolic, the formulation is striking nonetheless. Yet, there are a number of textual questions which must be addressed concerning Rabi Meir's endorsement of Torah study for Gentiles. First, in the context of this Talmudic passage, there is a difficult transition in the application of Rabi Meir's statement. The Talmud is evaluating Rav Yoseif's contention that the Almighty, on some level, released the gentiles from their seven areas of responsibility, on the basis of a verse in Chavakuk. Mar Bar Ravina counters that it cannot be the case that the Gentiles were entirely absolved of responsibility from their seven areas, citing as proof the statement of Rabi Meir in question, that a Gentile who studies the Torah is the equal of the Kohein Gadol. Yet, one must wonder, what has this to do with establishing a presently binding obligation for a Noahide to perform the seven commandments? Rabi Meir's statement concerns a different question altogether, that of scholarship.4 Moreover, Rabi Meir's statement seems to suffer, internally, from a similar problem, albeit in the opposite direction. Drawing on the verse which he cites, Rabi Meir wishes to argue that a Gentile who studies the Torah is accorded a particular stature. Yet, the verse in question, “Asher Ya’aseh Otam Ha’Adam VaChai Bahem,” “That a man shall do them and live by them,” understood plainly, relates not to the plane of study but to that of action. Prima facie, it is somewhat puzzling that Rabi Meir wishes to draw a conclusion concerning study from a verse which would appear to relate to action, just as it is curious that Mar bar Ravina would attempt to draw a proof from a statement concerning study to establish a Gentile's normative requirements based in conduct. In either case, the common denominator between these two parallel opposite questions is a certain liberty taken allowing for the conflation of action and study. In light of this discrepancy, it is important to note that the Sifra quotes an alternative version of this statement, though in place of Rabi Meir, the author of the statement is Rabi Yirmiyah.5 More to the point, the Sifra replaces the more oft-quoted version, found throughout the Talmud Bavli, with a conclusion which seems far more congruous with the language of the verse cited: “Asher Ya’aseh Otam Rabi Yirmiyah Omeir Atah Omeir Minayin Afilu Goy Ve’Oseh Et HaTorah Harei Hu KeKohein Gadol Talmud Lomar Asher Ya’aseh Otam Ha’Adam VaChai Bahem… Ha Afilu Goy Ve’Oseh Et HaTorah Harei Hu KeKohein Gadol.”6 “‘That [a man] shall do’-- Rabi Yirmiyah says, You should say, from where do we derive that even a gentile who performs the Torah is considered like the High Priest? Scripture says, ‘That a man shall do them and live by them’...thus, even a gentile who performs the Torah is considered like the High Priest.” This Sifra leaves unaddressed a whole series of questions regarding which kind of Gentile is being referenced and which commandments he is actually performing. Nonetheless, what emerges with perfect clarity is that any conclusions which we might have drawn regarding the value of Gentiles studying Torah based on Rabi Meir's statement are totally neutralized according to this version, as the statement does not address the topic of Torah study for Gentiles. Similarly, yet another version of the statement neutralizes Rabi Meir's ruling, albeit in a completely different way. In this version, the focus remains on study, as opposed to observance, yet fundamentally alters the identity of the protagonist. “VeLamah Nitnah HaTorah BeMidbar Lomar Mah Midbar Mufkar LeChol Bnei Adam Af Divrei Torah Mufkarin LeChol Mi SheYirtzeh Lilmod Shelo Yehei Adam Omeir Ani Ben Torah VeTorah Netunah Li VeLa’Avotai Ve’Atah Ve’Avotecha Lo Hayitem Bnei Torah Ela Avotecha Geirim Hayu LeChach Ketiv Morashah Kehilat Ya’akov LeChol Mi SheMithakeil BeYa’akov Afilu Geirim She’Oskin BaTorah Shekulim Heim KeKohein Gadol SheNe’emar Asher Ya’aseh Otam Ha’Adam VaChai Bahem Ani Hashem Elokeichem Kohein Levi VeYisrael Lo Ne’emar Ela Adam…” “And why was the Torah given in the desert? To say to you that just like the desert is ownerless and accessible to all, so too the Torah is ownerless and accessible to all who want to learn, So that no man will say, I am a son of the Torah and the Torah was given to me and to my forefathers, while you and your forefathers were not sons of the Torah, but rather your forefathers were converts, it is written, ‘[The Torah is] an inheritance of the congregation of Ya’akov,’ for anyone who congregates within Ya’akov; even converts who toil in the study of Torah are equal to the High Priest, as it is said, ‘That a man shall do them and live by them, I am Hashem your God’-- ‘Priest,’ ‘Levite,’ and ‘Israelite’ were not mentioned, but rather ‘man’...” Of course, once one is dealing with converts, whatever one may have derived from Rabi Meir's statement is unsupported. Thus, before one even begins to analyze Rabi Meir's statement on its own terms, it is important to note that it is but one version, albeit the dominant one, found within the corpus of Chazal.
1 See Rashi and Tosafot to Sanhedrin 59a. Rashi and the Tosafists disputed whether Rabi Meir might subscribe to Rabi Shimon's doctrine that the term Adam is limited to the Jewish realm; see Yevamot 61a and Tosafot ibid. Rabbeinu Tam assumed the matter was contingent on the use of the definite article, which would indicate an expansion to the universal realm. The broader implication of the term Adam notwithstanding, the context in which the verse cited in this passage appears in the Torah is a most unlikely one from which to derive a universal value of Torah study. If one examines the immediate context of this verse, VaYikra 18:5, one notes that it is located squarely within a section discussing Jewish particularism, and more specifically, the prohibition of “UVeChukoteihem Lo Teileichu,” “And in their laws you shall not walk,” and the need for the Jewish people to distinguish themselves from the ambient cultures of both Egypt and Canaan, “KeMa’aseh Eretz Mitzrayim Asher Yeshavtem Bah Lo Ta’asu UCheMa’aseh Eretz Kena’an Asher Ani Meivi Etchem Shama Lo Ta’asu,” “You shall not act like the actions of the land of Egypt in which you have dwelt, and you shall not act like the actions of the land of Canaan whence I am bringing you,” VaYikra 18:3. While it is axiomatic that the term Adam may still be derived to imply universal application in the area of Torah study, the highly particularistic orientation of the context in Torah SheBichtav certainly adds an unexpected dimension to the discussion of Rabi Meir's position.
2 Avodah Zarah 3a, cf. Bava Kamma 38a.
3 This approach is taken by Ra'ah, cited by Shitah Mekubetzet to Bava Kamma, 38a. However, the Tosafists, Avodah Zarah 3a, s.v. Harei Hu KeKohein Gadol, understand the comparison of the Gentile who immerses himself in Torah study in light of the rabbinic dictum that a Torah scholar who is of illegitimate birth is of greater stature than a Kohein Gadol who is an ignoramus, Horayot 13a. The Tosafists pull back from granting a Gentile scholar precedence over the Kohein Gadol, investing great significance in the subtle distinction between the formulation in the context of the Mamzeir, Mamzeir Talmid Chacham Kodeim LeKohein Gadol Am Ha’Aretz, and the formulation in this context, Harei Hu KeKohein Gadol. Thus, the Tosafists rule that the Gentile scholar is merely the equal of the Kohein Gadol, and not his superior. Nonetheless, it is a remarkable conclusion, especially in comparison to Ra'ah's minimalism in this connection. Still more striking is the interpretation of Maharsha, Chiddushei Aggadot, Avodah Zarah 3a, who interprets the passage in question in light of the celebrated amoraic statements in the coda of Menachot equating immersive study of Kodashim with, in both the order of the Talmud as well as in ascending conceptual significance, contributing to the construction of the Temple, offering sacrificial offerings in one's own right, or, in Rabi Yitzchak's view, supplanting the very need for such offerings in the first place. Maharsha argues that this notion itself is the thrust of the comparison between the gentile who immerses himself in the study of Torah and the Kohein Gadol: Rabi Meir is arguing that a gentile who immerses himself in the study of the kinds of sacrifices which he may offer is also afforded the status of one who has offered. While Maharsha thus dramatically limits the scope of Torah which Rabi Meir addresses in this context, confining it to the realm of the sacrificial rite, his argument that study equates with performance even for a gentile is a remarkable Chiddush.
4 We will return to this point at length towards the end of this series. The Talmud's apparent assumption that Rabi Meir's argument, which assigns value to scholarship on the part of a Gentile, implies some kind of on-going obligation to perform the seven Noahide commandments is a striking one indeed, and perhaps a revealing one as well. One might just have easily argued that the realm of scholarship and command are utterly distinct. Critically, the Talmud accepts this argument, and concludes that the reward which a Gentile receives for compliance is somewhat diluted as a result of their historic recalcitrance.
5 As noted by the Tosafists to Sanhedrin 59a, bothered as they were by Rabi Meir’s apparent endorsement of Rabi Shimon’s doctrine in the context of Keritut 6b. Naturally, if the proper author of our statement is Rabi Yirmiyah, the difficulty is averted.
6 Sifra, Acharei Mot, 9.