Was Rabbi Meir a student of Rabbi Eliezer?
Rashi said something the other day that I think was somewhat incorrect. In Sanhedrin 58a, the gemara has:
אָמַר רַב יְהוּדָה: לָא קַשְׁיָא, הָא רַבִּי מֵאִיר אַלִּיבָּא דְּרַבִּי אֱלִיעֶזֶר, וְהָא רַבִּי מֵאִיר אַלִּיבָּא דְּרַבִּי עֲקִיבָא.
Rav Yehuda says: This is not difficult; this baraita cites the statement of Rabbi Meir according to the opinion of Rabbi Eliezer, and that previously mentioned baraita cites the statement of Rabbi Meir according to the opinion of Rabbi Akiva.
and Rashi comments (my translation):
הא ר"מ וכו' - תלמיד של שניהם היה כדאמרי' במס' ביצה (ד' ג:) גבי ליטרא קציעות ר"מ אומר א"ר אליעזר רואין כאילו הן פרודות וכו' ובמס' עירובין בפ"ק (דף יג.) אמר ר"מ שמש את ר"ע. הא דקתני אחותו אסורה לו ואשת אביו מותרת לו ר"מ היא משום ר"א והאי דקתני חייבי מיתות נאסרו להם ולא חייבי כריתות ר"מ היא אליבא דר"ע:
This is Rabbi Meir… He was a student of both of them. As we say in tractate Beitza (3b-4a) regarding the litra of dried figs, that Rabbi Meir said that Rabbi Eliezer said “we view them [the upper circles of dried figs] as if they are separated, etc.” And in tractate Eruvin, the first perek (13a) it says that Rabbi Meir attended to Rabbi Akiva…
I have no complaints about the proof from Eruvin. Except I’d add that that same sugya also sets Rabbi Meir up as attending to Rabbi Akiva’s fourth-generation contemporary, Rabbi Yishmael ben Elisha. So, he has two fourth-generation teachers.
However, in terms of the gemara in Beitza, consider:
Rabbi Meir is a fifth-generation Tanna
Rabbi Akiva, his teacher, is a fourth-generation Tanna
Rabbi Eliezer (ben Hyrcanus), his teacher in turn, is a third-generation Tanna
It is quite expected to say that Rabbi Meir skipped a generation in teachers. It is not impossible, and we have examples of this. (Maybe Rabbi Yehuda with Rabbi Tarfon, who was senior to Rabbi Akiva?) But extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence, and the quote from Beitza does not seem to cut it. Let us examine it in full:
דִּתְנַן: לִיטְרָא קְצִיעוֹת שֶׁדְּרָסָהּ עַל פִּי עִגּוּל, וְאֵינוֹ יוֹדֵעַ בְּאֵיזֶה עִגּוּל דְּרָסָהּ, עַל פִּי חָבִית, וְאֵינוֹ יוֹדֵעַ בְּאֵיזוֹ חָבִית דְּרָסָהּ, עַל פִּי כַּוֶּרֶת, וְאֵינוֹ יוֹדֵעַ בְּאֵיזוֹ כַּוֶּרֶת דְּרָסָהּ. רַבִּי מֵאִיר אוֹמֵר, רַבִּי אֱלִיעֶזֶר
As we learned in a mishna: With regard to a litra of dried figs, whose stems were removed, and were dried and pressed in different vessels and shaped into circles, the obligation to tithe fruits is by rabbinic law. If one forgot to tithe the figs, and later remembered that he placed the figs into a barrel, and during the process of producing a circle he pressed the figs onto the mouth of one of the circular vessels in which the circles are formed, and does not know into which circular vessel he pressed it; or, if he recalls that he pressed it on the mouth of a barrel, but does not know in which barrel he pressed it, or if he recalls that he pressed it on the mouth of a straw receptacle, but does not know in which receptacle he pressed it, Rabbi Meir says that in all these cases there is a dispute between the tanna’im of the previous generation: Rabbi Eliezer
אוֹמֵר: רוֹאִין אֶת הָעֶלְיוֹנוֹת כָּאֵלּוּ הֵן פְּרוּדוֹת, וְהַתַּחְתּוֹנוֹת מַעֲלוֹת אֶת הָעֶלְיוֹנוֹת.
says: One considers the upper circles of dried figs as though they are separate pieces, rather than one unit. And the lower ones, which were there beforehand and have certainly been tithed, nullify the upper ones, as there are enough circles of figs in the entire barrel to nullify the upper litra.
רַבִּי יְהוֹשֻׁעַ אוֹמֵר: אִם יֵשׁ שָׁם מֵאָה פּוּמִּין — יַעֲלוּ, וְאִם לָאו — הַפּוּמִּין אֲסוּרִין, וְהַשּׁוּלַיִם מוּתָּרִין.
In contrast, Rabbi Yehoshua says: If there are one hundred mouths of different barrels or circular vessels there, the prohibited litra of untithed figs on the mouth of one of the vessels is nullified by a ratio of one part of prohibited figs to one hundred parts of similar, permitted figs. And if not, all of the circles of figs at the mouths of the barrels or circular vessels are prohibited, as one of them clearly contains a prohibited litra that has not been nullified. And the figs on the insides of the vessels are permitted, as the prohibited figs certainly did not reach there. This is Rabbi Meir’s version of the dispute.
רַבִּי יְהוּדָה אוֹמֵר, רַבִּי אֱלִיעֶזֶר אוֹמֵר: אִם יֵשׁ שָׁם מֵאָה פּוּמִּין — יַעֲלוּ, וְאִם לָאו — הַפּוּמִּין אֲסוּרִין, וְהַשּׁוּלַיִם מוּתָּרִין. רַבִּי יְהוֹשֻׁעַ אוֹמֵר: אֲפִילּוּ יֵשׁ שָׁם שְׁלֹשׁ מֵאוֹת פּוּמִּין — לֹא יַעֲלוּ.
Rabbi Yehuda says a different version of the dispute. Rabbi Eliezer says: If there are one hundred mouths of vessels with permitted figs present there, in addition to the prohibited one, it is nullified by the one hundred permitted mouths. And if not, the figs at the mouths are prohibited and those at the bottom are permitted. Rabbi Yehoshua says: Even if there are three hundred mouths present there, they are not nullified, as this litra cannot be nullified in any manner. Rav Pappa was referring to this opinion when he said that there is a tanna, meaning Rabbi Yehoshua in Rabbi Yehuda’s version, who maintains that even an item occasionally sold by unit, e.g., a circle of dried figs, can never be nullified.
So first, if you say that fifth-generation Rabbi Meir’s teacher was third-generation Rabbi Eliezer based on this, you also have to say that his teacher was third-generation Rabbi Yehoshua (ben Chanania). Not impossible, but that means that aside from two fourth-generation teachers, Rabbi Meir had two third-generation teachers.
And, whatever you say about Rabbi Meir has to equally apply to his fifth-generation contemporary, Rabbi Yehuda, for Rabbi Yehuda also discusses what Rabbi Eliezer and Rabbi Yehoshua mean.
A more straightforward explanation of that sugya in Beitza is that there was this well established, two-generation-old dispute between Rabbi Eliezer and Rabbi Yehoshua. Much time elapsed. The fifth-generation Tannaim, Rabbi Meir and Rabbi Yehuda, certainly did not hear these statements directly from the Sages two generations back. They heard the dispute, and Rabbi Meir and Rabbi Yehuda each tried to place the positions into a different conceptual framework. This happens all the time in the Talmud.
Also, it is unfortunate that Rashi’s quote is ר"מ אומר א"ר אליעזר רואין כאילו הן פרודות וכו', so is cut off. We don’t see that Rabbi Meir continues to cite Rabbi Eliezer’s interlocutor, which would have helped us see this as later Sages explaining the framework of earlier Sage’s dispute.
A truly random example, Keritot 6b:
רַבִּי מֵאִיר וְרַבִּי יְהוּדָה בְּמַאי פְּלִיגִי אָמַר רַב יוֹסֵף: בְּהָא פְּלִיגִי – רַבִּי מֵאִיר סָבַר: ״עַל בְּשַׂר אָדָם לֹא יִיסָךְ״ כְּתִיב, וּכְתִיב: ״וַאֲשֶׁר יִתֵּן מִמֶּנּוּ עַל זָר״, מָה סִיכָה כׇּל שֶׁהוּא – אַף נְתִינָה כׇּל שֶׁהוּא.
The Gemara asks: Concerning what matter do Rabbi Meir and Rabbi Yehuda disagree? Rav Yosef says that they disagree concerning this issue: Rabbi Meir holds that this halakha is based on the fact that it is written: “Upon the flesh of a person it shall not be applied” (Exodus 30:32), and it is written: “Or whoever places any of it upon a stranger, he shall be cut off from his people” (Exodus 30:33). The wording of the prohibition teaches with regard to the liability to receive karet: Just as the act of applying the oil to the skin prohibited by the verse refers to the application of any amount, as there is no specific measure stated in this regard, so too, the act of placing the oil mentioned with regard to karet refers to any amount.
No one would say that the third-generation Amora Rav Yosef was a direct student interacting with fifth-generation Tannaim Rabbi Meir and Rabbi Yehuda.