wives for two or three years, is plausibly read as an index of ambivalence and opposition to this practice:
|
 | | Rava said that our Rabbis have relied upon Rav Ada the son of Ahva and indeed practice in accordance with his view. As in the case of Rav Rehume who was a disciple of Rava's in Mahoza. He would regularly visit his wife every year on the Eve of Yom Kippur. One day, his studies absorbed him. His wife was waiting for him, "Now he will come. Now he will come." He did not come. She became upset, and a tear fell from her eye. He was sitting on the roof. The roof collapsed under him and he died.
|
As I have said, on the overt level of the structure of the Talmud's argument, this text is cited as a support for Rava's contention that the Rabbis depend legitimately on Rav Ada's tradition and practice accordingly. However, it does not take a very suspicious hermeneut to read it against the grain. The story, in fact, encodes a very sharp critique of the practice of married Rabbis being away from home for extended periods. First of all, let us note that it is clear from this story that the Rabbi did not study at any great distance from his home, for had he done so, one day of slightly extended study would not have made such a difference and prevented him from getting home for Yom Kippur. This consideration only enhances the irony to which Yonah Fränkel has pointed in the phrase "would
regularly
visit his wife on the Eve of Yom Kippur" (Fränkel 1981, 101). Further, the fact that he is portrayed as being so unmindful that he even forgets the one time of the year that he goes to visit his wife can only be read as an extremely critical and ironic representation of this Rabbi's behavior. It is possible that the name of the protagonist also is ironically emblematic of his character, for his name,
Rehume,
means "lover" or ''merciful one,'' and he demonstrates that he is neither. Another possible, and indeed very attractive, interpretation is that Rav Rehume is indeed a lover, a lover of Torah.
24
That is, we would have here actuated once again a version of the topos that we saw above with regard
|
(footnote continued from the previous page)
|
| | for more than a month, a fortiori, without permission
. However, it is possible to understand that statement differently, to wit: that thirty days away from home can be described as normal practice, or even that the discussion focuses really on what happens after the return home of the one who goes away for thirty days without permission, in which case Rav and Rabbi Yohanan are merely questioning how long he must stay home before leaving again. The argument is not definitive.
|
| | 24. The name itself is otherwise attested in the Talmud approximately eight times. My suggestion is that choosing precisely this figure as the hero of this story is not accidental.
|
|
|