פירוש על עבודה זרה 35:2

The Talmud tries to find sins that would explain why R. Hanina was executed. Note that this is “overexplaining”—the Talmud explained earlier that he dies because he did not engage in gemilut hasadim
Hanina is accused of pronouncing God’s name according to its letters. But then the Talmud explains that he only did so in order to practice or understand, but not for magical purposes. Nevertheless, he was punished for pronouncing God’s name in public.

Hanina’s wife was punished for not stopping R. Hanina from pronouncing God’s name in public. Pretty harsh punishment.

The Talmud searches for a sin for which R. Hanina’s daughter is punished as well. Note, the Talmud is not satisfied with saying that his wife and daughter are punished in order to punish him. This might make sense as a simple reading of the story but does not match the rabbinic understanding of God’s justice and power. Rather, they are punished for their own sins. His daughter’s sin was as minor as taking delight in the attention the Roman men paid to her.

This is what martyrdom in the ancient world was all about. Going to one’s death and still maintaining faith in the justice of God. It was a form of “testimony” to the outside world of the greatness of the God of the martyr. Again, I should emphasize that some stories in the Talmud celebrate the martyr, but some do not.

Yose b. Kisma presents R. Hanina with a theological problem—if Jews believe that God has decreed that Rome should rule, why do we still protest against them?

Hanina seems totally indifferent to his fate. I read in these lines some criticism of R. Hanina. R. Hanina’s answer strikes even R. Yose b. Kisma as ridiculous.

Hanina’s willingness to pay tzedakah money out of his own pocket is what gets him a place in the world to come. Note, it is not his study of Torah or his willingness to die that allows him into the world to come. It is his good deeds. Again, I think there is some criticism here of the rabbinic movement.

The beginning of this story is fascinating for the contrast it offers between R. Yose b. Kisma and R. Hanina. The former is certainly a rabbi, assumedly one who studied Torah. Yet not only did the Romans not persecute him, they attend his burial and offer eulogies for him. Again, I am not reading this tale to try to determine what happened in actual history. I read it as an ideological statement. The author/editor of this story seems to be implying that one can be a rabbi and still get along with the Romans. R. Hanina was not simply a rabbi—he was provoking a fight. While we do have some sympathies for him, he is an ambiguous character.

The cruelty of the Romans is highlighted when they attempt to delay his death. And the bravery, dedication and martyrdom of R. Hanina is emphasized by the fact that he embraces his death. In my reading, the reason that he wishes to hold the Torah is to emphasize what he is being martyred for. If people do not know this, then his martyrdom has no value.

Hanina experiences a mystical vision while dying. Note that his students assume that he will see something that they cannot see. This is what is expected when one acts as a martyr. He then refuses to injure himself, insisting that only God can take his soul.

The Executioner now becomes a martyr himself, thereby acquiring eternal life through one act. Note that the act is twofold—first of all, he eases R. Hanina’s death. This seems to be sanctioned. R. Hanina is not allowed to hasten his own death, but he may allow the executioner to do so. And then he martyrs himself as well.
Rabbi’s commentary here is the same as it was in the previous story.

The Executioner now becomes a martyr himself, thereby acquiring eternal life through one act. Note that the act is twofold—first of all, he eases R. Hanina’s death. This seems to be sanctioned. R. Hanina is not allowed to hasten his own death, but he may allow the executioner to do so. And then he martyrs himself as well.
Rabbi’s commentary here is the same as it was in the previous story.

Beruria, R. Hanina’s daughter, sends R. Meir, her husband, out to rescue her sister from the brothel. R. Meir assumes that a miracle would be wrought for R. Hanina’s daughter only if no man has violated her in the brothel. R. Meir comes across here as blaming the innocent victim. I’m not convinced the story teller has much sympathy for him.

Disguised as a cavalryman, R. Meir determines that she has been refusing all men who come to have sex with her. This, in his eyes, justifies his coming attempt to rescue her.

Meir bribes the reluctant jailer, who after seeing the miracles that R. Meir can work, hands Beruriah’s sister over to him.