One of the most prominent tannaim of the first and second centuries; disciple of R. Johanan ben Zakkai (Ab. ii. 8; Ab. R. N. vi. 3, xiv. 5) and colleague of Gamaliel II., whose sister he married (see Imma Shalom), and of Joshua b. Hananiah (Ab. l.c.; Ab. R. N. l.c.; B. B. 10b). His earlier years are wrapped in myths; but from these latter it may be inferred that he was somewhat advanced in life when a desire for learning first seized him, and impelled him, contrary to the wishes of his father, to desert his regular occupation and to repair to Jerusalem to devote himself to the study of the Torah. Here he entered Johanan's academy and for years studied diligently, notwithstanding the fact that he had to cope with great privations. It is said that sometimes many days elapsed during which he did not have a single meal. Johanan, recognizing Eliezer's receptive and retentive mind, styled him "a cemented cistern that loses not a drop" (Ab. l.c.). These endowments were so pronounced in him that in later years he could declare, "I have never taught anything which I had not learned from my masters" (Suk. 28a).

His father in the meantime determined to disinherit him, and with that purpose in view went to Jerusalem, there to declare his will before Johanan ben Zakkai. The great teacher, having heard of Hyrcanus' arrival and of the object of his visit, instructed the usher to reserve for the expected visitor a seat among those to be occupied by the élite of the city, and appointed Eliezer lecturer for that day. At first the latter hesitated to venture on Johanan's place, but, pressed by the master and encouraged by his friends, delivered a discourse, gradually displaying wonderful knowledge. Hyrcanus having recognized in the lecturer his truant son, and hearing the encomiums which Johanan showered on him, now desired to transfer all his earthly possessions to Eliezer; but the scholar, overjoyed at the reconciliation, declined to take advantage of his brothers, and requested to be allowed to have only his proportionate share (Ab. R. N. vi. 3; Pirḳe R. El. i. et seq.). He continued his attendance at Johanan's college until near the close of the siege of Jerusalem, when he and Joshua assisted in smuggling their master out of the city and into the Roman camp (see Johanan ben Zakkai).

Subsequently Eliezer proceeded to Jabneh (Ab.R. N. iv. 5; Giṭ. 56), where he later became a member of the Sanhedrin under the presidency of Gamaliel II. (Ab. R. N. xiv. 6; Sanh. 17b), though he had established, and for many years afterward conducted, his own academy at Lydda (Sanh. 36b). His fame as a great scholar had in the meantime spread, R. Johanan himself declaring that Eliezer was unequaled as an expositor of traditional law (Ab. R. N. vi. 3); and many promising students, among them Akiba (ib.; Yer. Pes. vi. 33b), attached themselves to his school.

Eliezer became known as "Eliezer ha-Gadol" (= "the Great"; Tosef., 'Orlah, 8; Ber. 6a, 32a; Soṭah 13b, 48b, 49a; generally, however, he is styled simply "R. Eliezer"), and with reference to his legal acumen and judicial impartiality, the Scriptural saying (Deut. xvi. 20), "That which is altogether just [lit. "Justice, justice"] shalt thou follow," was thus explained: "Seek a reliable court: go after R. Eliezer to Lydda, or after Johanan ben Zakkai to Beror Ḥel," etc. (Sanh. 32b). Once he accompanied Gamaliel and Joshua on an embassy to Rome (Yer. Sanh. vii. 25d; Deut. R. ii. 24).

Eliezer's Conservatism.

Rabbi Eliezer was very severe and somewhat domineering with his pupils and colleagues (see Sifra, Shemini, i. 33; 'Er. 68a; Ḥag. 3b; Meg. 25b), a characteristic which led occasionally to unpleasant encounters. The main feature of his teaching was a strict devotion to tradition: he objected to allowing the Midrash or the paraphrastic interpretation to pass as authority for religious practise. In this respect he sympathized with the conservative school of Shammai, which was also opposed to giving too much scope to the interpretation. Hence the assertion that he was a Shammaite, though he was a disciple of R. Johanan ben Zakkai, who was one of Hillel's most prominent pupils. This brought Eliezer into conflict with his colleagues and contemporaries, who realized that such conservatism must be fatal to a proper development of the oral law. It was also felt that the new circumstances, such as the destruction of the Temple and the disappearance of the national independence, required a strong religious central authority, to which individual opinion must yield.

At last the rupture came. The Sanhedrin deliberated on the susceptibility to Levitical uncleanness of an 'aknai-oven (an oven consisting of tiles separated from one another by sand, but externally plastered over with cement). The majority decided that such an oven was capable of becoming unclean, but Eliezer dissented. As he thus acted in direct opposition to the decision of the majority, it was deemed necessary to make an example of him, and he was excommunicated. Still, even under these circumstances great respect was manifested toward him, and the sentence was communicated to him in a very considerate manner. Akiba, dressed in mourning, appeared before him and, seated at some distance from him, respectfully addressed him with "My master, it appears to me that thy colleagues keep aloof from thee." Eliezer readily took in the situation and submitted to the sentence (B. M. 59b; Yer. M. Ḳ. iii. 81a et seq.). Thenceforth Eliezer lived in retirement, removed from the center of Jewish learning; though occasionally some of his disciples visited him and informed him of the transactions of the Sanhedrin (Yad. iv. 3).

Relations with Christianity.

During the persecutions of the Jewish Christians in Palestine, Eliezer was charged with being a member of that sect, and was summoned before the penal tribunal. Being asked by the governor, "How can a great man like thee engage in such idle things?" he simply replied, "The judge is right." The judge, understanding thereby Eliezer's denial of all connection with Christianity, released him, while Rabbi Eliezer understood by "judge" God, justifying the judgment of God which had brought this trial upon him. That he should be suspected of apostasy grieved him sorely; and though some of his pupils tried to comfort him, he remained for some time inconsolable. At last he remembered that once, while at Sepphoris, he had met a sectary who communicated to him a singular halakah in the name of Jesus; that he had approved of the halakah and had really enjoyed hearing it, and, he added, "Thereby I transgressed the injunction (Prov. v. 8), 'Remove thy way far from her, and come not nigh the door of her house,' which the Rabbis apply to sectarianism as well as to heresy" ('Ab. Zarah 16b; Eccl. R. i. 8). The suspicion of apostasy and the summons before the dreaded tribunal came, therefore, as just punishment. This event in his life may have suggested to him the ethical rule, "Keep away from what is indecent and from that which appears to be indecent" (Tosef., Ḥul. ii. 24). It is suggested that his sayings, "Instructing a woman in the Law is like teaching her blasphemy" (Soṭah iii. 4); "Let the Law be burned rather than entrusted to a woman" (ib.); and "A woman's wisdom is limited to the handling of the distaff" (Yoma 66b), also date from that time, he having noticed that women were easily swayed in matters of faith.

Separated from his colleagues and excluded from the deliberations of the Sanhedrin, Eliezer passed his last years of life unnoticed and in comparative solitude. It is probably from this melancholy period that his aphorism dates: "Let the honor of thy colleague [variant, "pupils"] be as dear to thee as thine own, and be not easily moved to anger. Repent one day before thy death. Warm thyself by the fire of the wise men, but be cautious of their burning coals [= "slight them not"], that thou be not burned; for their bite is the bite of a jackal, their sting is that of a scorpion, their hissing is that of a snake, and all their words are fiery coals" (Ab. ii. 10; Ab. R. N. xv. 1). When asked how one can determine the one day before his death, he answered: "So much the more must one repent daily, lest he die to-morrow; and it follows that he must spend all his days in piety" (Ab. R. N. l.c. 4; Shab. 153a).

His Death.

When his former colleagues heard of his approaching dissolution, the most prominent of them hastened to his bedside at Cæsarea. When they appeared before him he began to complain about his long isolation. They tried to mollify him by professing great and unabated respect for him, and by averring that it was only the lack of opportunity that had kept them away. He felt that they might have profited by histeaching. Thereupon they besought him to communicate to them traditions concerning certain moot points, particularly touching Levitical purity and impurity. He consented, and answered question after question until all breath left him. The last word he uttered was "ṭahor" (= "pure"), and this the sages considered as an auspicious omen of his purity; whereupon they all rent their garments in token of mourning, and R. Joshua revoked the sentence of excommunication.

Eliezer died on a Friday, and after the following Sabbath his remains were solemnly conveyed to Lydda, where he had formerly conducted his academy, and there he was buried. Many and earnest were the eulogies pronounced over his bier. R. Joshua is said to have kissed the stone on which Eliezer used to sit while instructing his pupils, and to have remarked, "This stone represents Sinai [whence the Law was revealed]; and he who sat on it represented the Ark of the Covenant" (Cant. R. i. 3). R. Akiba applied to Eliezer the terms which Elisha had applied to Elijah (II Kings ii. 12), and which Joash subsequently applied to Elisha himself (ib. xiii. 14), "O my father, my father, the chariot of Israel, and the horsemen thereof" (Ab. R. N. xxv. 3).

Though excommunicated, Eliezer is quoted in the Mishnah, the Baraita, and the Talmudim more frequently than any one of his colleagues. He is also made the putative author of Pirḳe De-R. Eliezer or Baraita of R. Eliezer, though internal evidence conclusively proves the late origin of the work.

  • Bacher, Ag. Tan. i. 100-160;
  • Brüll, Mebo ha-Mishnah, i. 75-82;
  • Frankel, Darke ha-Mishnah, pp. 75-83;
  • Grätz, Gesch. 2d ed., iv. 43 et seq.;
  • Hamburger, R. B. T. ii. 162-168;
  • Heilprin, Seder ha-Dorot, ii., s.v.;
  • Oppenheim, Bet Talmud, iv. 311, 332, 360;
  • Weiss, Dor, ii. 81 et seq.;
  • Wiesner, Gibe'at Yerushalayim, pp. 61 et seq.;
  • Zacuto, Yuḥasin, ed. Filipowski, pp. 50a et seq.;
  • G. Deutsch, The Theory of Oral Tradition, pp. 30, 34, Cincinnati, 1896.
S. S. S. M.
Images of pages