klits klats klander v/d ene lange teen op d'ander!

Van
Begin tot
Einde gaat het
dus eigenlijk allemaal om
puur 'religieus' menselijk [groeps]gedrag:
je kunt er alle kanten mee op
omdat mensen nu eenmaal flexibel,
vormelijk & vormbaar blijven tussen ontstaan en vergaan ~
men past zich aan
de gegeven omstandigheden aan,
en zoals we ooit vanuit Afrika de rest van de wereld bevolkten,
zo gaan we vanaf de Aarde 'het Heelal' [ooit weer verder] in.
In de tussentijd roeien we met de
[tijdelijk gangbare] riemen
die we hebben zomaar
een 'eind weg': we
zien wel waar we
terechtkomen
[of juist
niet!]?

"It
is taught:
When Rabbi
Eliezer was sick,
Rabbi Akiva and
his colleages went in to visit him.
He was sitting in his canopied bed,
and they were sitting in his anteroom.
That was the eve of the Sabbath, and his son
Horkanos went in to take off his [father's] phylacteries.
He rebuked him and [the son] went out with a scolding.
He said to his colleages:
I believe that Father is
out of his mind!"

According
to rabbinic law,
the phylacteries are not worn on the Sabbath.
The son wishes to remove the father's phylacteries
in order that he should
not be in violation,
but the father
rebukes him.

The son
concludes that his father is
either in a highly irrational state of mind or perhaps
that he is following
some sectarian
practice.

"OUT
of one's mind"
is used as a technical term for sectarianism
[that also what was said about Jesus on several occasions!]
or for superstitio, which does not mean a foolish belief to be laughed at,
but "everything which opposed the true Roman religio
such as the activities of astrologers
and fortune-tellers."

The
Latin equivalents
are amentia, or the lack of
a bona mens, dementia, furor.
These are exact equivalents of the Hebrew here.
So I would argue that the coincidence of meaning "out of his mind" = dementia = superstitio
is one of the stronger pieces of evidence we have for this reading.
Whether or not Rabbi Eli'ezer is being alluded to as a Christian, then,
surely these topoi of martyr acts have had their impact on our story.
See also Justin Martyr's Dialogue, 39.3, in which Trypho accuses the Christian
of being literally "out of his mind," the precise etymological counterpart
of the Hebrew expression used here. This usage lends a certain
extra force to the analogy between
the discourse of heresy and
the discourse of
madness.

"[Rabbi
Eli'ezer] said to them:
He and his mother are out of their minds.
How shall I leave that which is liable for stoning
and take care of that which is only
a minor commandment?!

Eli'ezer
is apparently exercised
that the boy and the mother are not attending properly
to their own preparations for the Sabbath
while worrying about his
apparent "sectarian"
practice.

Phylacteries {tefillin}
are a particularly apt emblem in this story,
owing to the fact that the precise mode of observance of this ritual
was a Shibboleth marking the boundary
between rabbinic "orthopraxy"
and sectarianism:

It
is also
indicated elsewhere
[M. Meg 4:9] that there were
various deviant practices regarding tefillin,
some of which are explicitly labelled in that Mishnah
as minut [sectarianism] or derekh hahisonim and are forbidden by the rabbis.
Also, at times the rabbis are at pains to distinguish
between tefillin and mere amulets,
suggesting that in fact the two
were not all that
distinct.

Thus,
Rabbi Eli'ezer's
disdain for rabbinic
details as regards the wearing of tefillin
may signal his preference for alternative [in the view of the rabbis,
heretical or magical] tefillin practices. Further,
[in m. Sanhedrin 11:3], the paradigmatic
"rebellious elder" is the elder who rebels
against rabbinic halakha
concerning tefillin
...

In
other words,
the juxtaposition of purity laws and magic
as R. Eli'ezer's particular expertise is likewise no mere accident,
and may also sinal R. Eli'ezer's heretical learnings.
Purity laws are viewed by the rabbis as irrational
laws and in some texts they appear to be
the Jewish analog
to pagan
magic!

For
example,
{in Num Rab, Huqqat 19:8},
a pagan questions a rabbi concerning the purification ritual
involving the ashes of the red heifer. To him, this looks [very much]
like sorcery, and indeed the rabbi
explains it as analogous to the
magic or exorcistic
rituals of
pagans!

In
an aside
to his astonished
disciples afterward the rabbi says
that in fact there is no efficy
in the ritual at all;
it is done simply
'because it was
ordained by
G d?

This
fascinating text
illustrates the rabbi's self-consciousness,
their sensitivity to the fact that to outsiders,
Jewish purification rituals look like so much hocus-pocus.
It is indeed interesting that R. Eli'ezer is an expert
in that which is most easily confused
with and taken for magic
by outsiders, as well as
being accomplished in
actual magical
arts.

In short,
the R. Eli'ezer materials contain more hints
of the heretical interest of R. Eli'ezer,
and the threat to rabbinic authority
that such an interest entails,
[than usually is allowed
by some others]!

Although
the transgression
toward his wife, the famous
Imma Shalom, seems totally gratuitous here,
the Rabbi offers a rational, that is,
rabbinic explanation
for his behavior?!

He
was engaged
in preparing for
the more stringent aspects of Sabbath observance ~
and they ought to have been, too ~ and didn't want to be bothered with the relativily minor stricture
to remove his phylacteries. Although by leaving his phylacteries in place he is violating a rabbinic injunction and therefore seemingly still transgressing
the boundary, he explains that
that is not his
intention
[at all!]?

He is simply angry
that his wife and son
are concerned with his transgression
of a mere rabbinic commandment while
they are putting themselves in danger thereby
of lighting candles or cooking on the Sabbath,
which were much more serious violations?!
He thus is neither insane
nor insensible of the
nuances and details
of rabbinic
halakha!

We
komen er
vast wel weer
op terug [sooner or later]:
HET punt is {en blijft} ~ als het de traditie [vaste gewoonte] was,
om op [bijna] alle slakjes zout te leggen [om wat voor diverse redenen dan ook],
dan bestaat dus ook de neiging om allen
die daarvan afwijken te verketteren
& te bestrijden?!

Wanneer
['van het
begin af aan'],
elke wijze van 'bidden',
'offeren', bevestigen & afwijken van rituelen,
[of wat voor 'habit'/regel dan ook]
volkomen 'vastligt', en
"ZO"
[alleen
{RAK KACH!}?]
moet worden bewaard [voor
alle 'eeuwigheid'], dan kan het niet
anders of mensen en groepen
gaan zich afzonderen van
die praktijk, met
alle gevolgen
vandien!

En
het merkwaardige
is dan ook dat juist die gewoonte
kan leiden tot 'volkomen' nieuwe ontwikkelingen:
na de mythen & legenden die ontstonden toen de Middellandse
Zee overstroomde in de "Zwarte Zee" na de laatste IJstijd en toen Avram
vanuit Ur in Chaldea, via Haran in Klein Asia, door Kana'an {Yitschak/Ya'akov}
naar de vleespotten van Duisterland Egypte ~ de Uittocht ten tijde van de Uitbarsting van o.a. Thera/Sarotini & Echnaton {vader van Tut Ankh Amon!} ~ vertrok via "40 jaar wildernis" naar 't
"beloofde land" ~ en al datgene waar 't OT mee volstaat: 'de profeten' & hun visie{s} op
rechtvaardigheid, mededeelzaamheid, vervolmaking & 'de weg' ~
Yehosjoea t.t.v. Augustus {e.d.} Herodos {& familie}, Pontius
Pilatus, De Opstand[en], De Catastofe, Vernietiging van DE
Tempel{dienst}, De Diaspora, "De Weg" & De Terugkeer:
kortom ~ 2000/3000/4000 jaar 'ontwikkelingen' vanuit
DIE achtergrond naar de situatie{s} waarin we ons
NU bevinden [met alles erop & eran!]?
Van "Joden", via "Christenen", naar
'de islam' & 'de rest v/d wereld ~
voortgaande ontwikkelingen
vanuit zekere bronnen in
de bevolkingen van al
die andere plaatsen
tijden & dus ook
'mydiertjes'
...