Our Gemara on Amud aleph describes the intense years of gut pain that Rabbi Yehuda Hanasi experienced. The Gemara attributes his suffering to an incident where he was not merciful toward a calf. His suffering only abated, years later, when he spontaneously showed kindness toward weasels that were being harassed by his housekeeper:

There was a certain calf that was being led to slaughter. The calf went and hung its head on the corner of Rabbi Yehuda Hanasi’s garment and was weeping. Rabbi Yehuda Hanasi said to it: Go, as you were created for this purpose. It was said in Heaven: Since he was not compassionate toward the calf, let afflictions come upon him.

One day, the maidservant of Rabbi Yehuda Hanasi was sweeping his house. There were young weasels [karkushta] lying about, and she was in the process of sweeping them out. Rabbi Yehuda Hanasi said to her: Let them be, as it is written: “The Lord is good to all; and His mercies are over all His works” (Psalms 145:9). They said in Heaven: Since he was compassionate, we shall be compassionate on him, and he was relieved of his suffering.

The obvious difficulty with this Gemara is how can we believe that Rabbi Yehuda Hanasi committed any great cruelty for sending the calf to slaughter? Furthermore, what great kindness was accomplished by letting some rodents have free reign? Both of these situations are a part of nature and the world. Humans eat meat and dominate their spaces, not allowing pests or rodents to intrude. Is the Gemara promoting a Jainist type of philosophy, where one should be vigilant, even so as to avoid stepping on grass or insects?

Different commentaries offer explanations of Rabbi Yehuda Hanasi’s transgression, each one serving as a projection for particular values and concepts in Jewish ethical thinking.

Maharsha says that the sin was due to Rabbi Yehuda Hanasi not realizing the animal's potential. He was too quick to slaughter it, instead of using it for plowing. This explanation replaces the focus on a requirement  for extreme mercy to an extreme awareness of the potential and value of every object in this world, and to be careful not to neglect or underutilize it. Along similar lines, Tomer Devorah (ch. 3) relates Rabbi Yehuda Hanasi’s sin to any action that does not show objects their appropriate respect. Tomer Devorah says it is forbidden to misuse even inanimate objects or food, because it shows a lack of appreciation for God’s creations,

Ben Yehoyada and others understand Rabbi Yehuda Hanasi’s oversight as having to do with the calf being a reincarnated human who was required to repair something from his past life. Rabbi Yehuda Hanasi turned a deaf ear to the tortured soul’s pleading and fear of the pain of slaughter, because he believed this was the man’s fate and punishment which he needed for expiation. Rabbi Yehuda Hanasi’s error was to not realize that his prayers still could have allowed for an elevation and repair of this soul without as much suffering, and the soul could have been released prior to the slaughter. He should not have given up on the power of prayer to obtain redemption even after death. 

The Chasam Sofer (Vayikra 33) also follows the reincarnation idea, but sees Rabbi Yehuda Hanasi’s sin in not realizing that this soul wanted specifically for him to slaughter, eat and thereby assist him in sanctifying and elevating his physical experience that was supposed to function as a repair. Rabbi Yehuda Hanasi held that his slaughter and consumption of the meat was no more special than another Jew’s, and redirected the calf to stick with its fate. The sin was to be overly modest in a situation where he would have brought about a unique redemption, and his consumption was truly not equivalent to his peers.

It occurs to me that we might read the Gemara simply, but understand Rabbi Yehuda Hanasi’s sin to be of a subtle attitude that was not externally perceptible. The rabbis concluded that the correlation of his suffering which began with the slaughter of the calf and only ended with the mercy on the weasels showed something went wrong. However none of what went wrong could be discerned from the outside. It may have been the slightest degree of acting callously toward the slaughter of the animal, even if it was necessary. This is in consonance with what we discussed prior in blogpost Psychology of the Daf 83, in the name of the Be’er Mayyim Chaim (Bereishis 1:1)  and Shalah (Asara Maamaros, Seventh Maamar): For a person of a certain spiritual stature, otherwise permitted acts may be sinful if they fail to address the metaphysical repairs that are required for that person.

Regardless of whichever explanation you favor, the unmistakable lesson of this Gemara is that, at least some people, are held accountable to a different standard. I don’t think it stops there. Patterns repeat themselves from the highest to the lowest aspects of spirituality and physicality. It is not just Rabbi Yehuda Hanasi. We are all inevitably responsible to dynamically assess who we are and what is incumbent upon us. The technical rules are only the lower range of observance. Each of us, with our uniquely endowed souls and abilities, must intuit our mission in life.

Translations Courtesy of Sefaria, except when, sometimes, I disagree with the translation

Do you like what you see? Please subscribe and also forward any articles you enjoy to your friends, (enemies too, why not?)