The Test of the Worthy Disciple
The Talmud (Niddah 14b, below) offers a passage of legal-narrative that may suggest a kind of puzzle for the reader to dicipher. There are mutiple layers of discussion to identify, and for the purpose of this puzzle exercise, I will render the various sages anonymous and the legal-ritual matter will be rendered similarly.
Layer #1 - The Test of a Worthy Disciple
Rabbi Y wishes to test Rabbi W.
Rabbi W meets Rabbi Y and asks a legal-ritual question (Case A): If A occurs, should the outcome be B or C?
Rabbi Y offers Rabbi W a choice: Would you like to hear the answer of Rabbi Z or Rabbi X?
Rabbi W chooses to hear the answer of Rabbi X.Rabbi Y tells Rabbi W he failed the test as Rabbi X is the student of Rabbi Z.
Layer #2 - An Alternative Ending
Layer #3 - Explaining the Debate
The Talmudic narrator seems to assume that the reader will understand its unstated conclusion. It appears that the implication of the final narrator statement is that the debate of Rabbi U and Rabbi Z parallel the debate of Rabbi X and Rabbi Z.
Discussion
Some points to ponder:
- A possible reading of the tale would present Rabbi X as siding with his teacher's rival in at least two different cases, and that these positions were taken up after some time of serving as the head of the rabbinic academy.
- The original narrative (Layer #1) could be read that Rabbi W was refused either interpretation in Case A. If so, perhaps this implies that the point of the (original) tale was never the legal discussion that concerns the narrator (in Layers #3 and #4).
- Was the narrator's defence of Rabbi W enough to repudiate Rabbi Y's criticism?
- If the Talmudic narrator was able to defend Rabbi W (Layer #2), why was this defence not deployed in the original tale (Layer #1) by either Rabbi W or Rabbi X?
- Was Rabbi Y critical of Rabbi X for his decision to argue with Rabbi Z (Rabbi's Y's father and Rabbi X's teacher)?
- Was the conclusion intentionally left unstated?
משתבח ליה רבי לרבי ישמעאל ברבי יוסי ברבי חמא בר ביסא דאדם גדול הוא אמר לו לכשיבא לידך הביאהו לידי כי אתא א"ל בעי מינאי מילתא בעא מיניה בדקה בעד שאינו בדוק לה והניחתו בקופסא ולמחר מצאה עליו דם מהו אמר לו כדברי אבא אימא לך או כדברי רבי אימא לך א"ל כדברי רבי אימא לי אמר רבי ישמעאל זהו שאומרין עליו דאדם גדול הוא היאך מניחין דברי הרב ושומעין דברי התלמיד ור' חמא בר ביסא סבר רבי ריש מתיבתא הוא ושכיחי רבנן קמיה ומחדדי שמעתתיה מאי רבי ומאי רבי יוסי אמר רב אדא בר מתנא תנא רבי מטמא ורבי יוסי מטהר ואמר רבי זירא כשטימא רבי כר"מ וכשטיהר רבי יוסי לעצמו טיהר דתניא האשה שהיתה עושה צרכיה וראתה דם ר"מ אומר אם עומדת טמאה אם יושבת טהורה רבי יוסי אומר בין כך ובין כך טהורה
Layer #1 - The Test
§ The Gemara relates: Rabbi Yehuda HaNasi would praise Rabbi Ḥama bar Bisa to Rabbi Yishmael, son of Rabbi Yosei, by saying that he is a great man.
Rabbi Yishmael said to Rabbi Yehuda HaNasi: When he comes to you, bring him to me.
When Rabbi Ḥama came before him, Rabbi Yishmael said to him: Ask me about a halakhic matter.
Rabbi Ḥama asked him: If a woman examined herself with a cloth that was not examined by her before its use, and she placed it in a box, and on the following day she found blood on this cloth, what is the halakha?
Rabbi Yishmael said to him: Shall I say to you an answer in accordance with the statement of father, Rabbi Yosei, or shall I say to you an answer in accordance with the statement of Rabbi Yehuda HaNasi?
Which would you prefer? Rabbi Ḥama said to him: Say to me an answer in accordance with the statement of Rabbi Yehuda HaNasi.
Rabbi Yishmael said: Is this the one that Rabbi Yehuda HaNasi says about him that he is a great man? How can he neglect the statement of the teacher, Rabbi Yosei, and listen to the statement of the student, Rabbi Yehuda HaNasi?
Layer #2 - An Alternate Ending
The Gemara explains: And Rabbi Ḥama bar Bisa did so because he maintains that the opinion of Rabbi Yehuda HaNasi is preferable, as he is the head of the yeshiva, and the Sages are frequently in his presence, and due to the constant disputes his statements are sharper than those of Rabbi Yosei, despite the fact that Rabbi Yosei was his teacher.
Layer #3 - Explaining the Debate
The Gemara asks: What is this statement of Rabbi Yehuda HaNasi, and what is the statement of Rabbi Yosei, referred to by Rabbi Yishmael?
Rav Adda bar Mattana says that the reference is to that which was taught in a baraita with regard to this case: Rabbi Yehuda HaNasi deems the woman impure and Rabbi Yosei deems her pure.
And Rabbi Zeira says, in explanation of this dispute: When Rabbi Yehuda HaNasi deemed the woman impure, he ruled in accordance with the line of reasoning of Rabbi Meir, and when Rabbi Yosei deemed her pure, he deemed her pure in accordance with his own line of reasoning.
As it is taught in a mishna (59b): In the case of a woman who was urinating and saw blood mixed in the urine, Rabbi Meir says: If she urinated while standing, she is impure, as the blood could have originated in the uterus. If she was sitting, she is pure, as the blood is clearly from the urethra. Rabbi Yosei says: Whether she urinates in this manner, standing, or whether she urinates in that manner, sitting, she is pure.
Layer #4 - Unstated Conclusion
Like Rabbi Meir, who disregards the possibility that the blood originated in the urethra in a case where the woman was standing, Rabbi Yehuda HaNasi deems a woman impure in the case where blood is found on the cloth in the box, despite the possibility that it could have been on the cloth before she used it to examine herself. Rabbi Yosei, by contrast, maintains that wherever there is a reasonable uncertainty, the woman is not impure.