Wimpfheimer_ Is it not so.pdf

72 ❙ Barry Wimpfheimer
for Rava to need themÐfor him to be in their service. They intervene here and
point out a bias of their teacher toward faultÐa bias familiar to them from lectures
and cases, one that clouds his judgment and makes a di³cult case seem simplistic.
In the ®rst narrative, Rava's students attempt to embody the conceptual lesson
of their teacher by replicating it in the classroomÐRava becomes his own example.
His response teaches the students that theoretical study and practical application are
two di²erent realms. The mapping of one world onto another is not precisely to
scale; the imprecision yields the unexpected emotional result of anger or shame.
Rava reverses the map's compass, and his control over the applicationÐthe students
are in his serviceÐbecomes the basis for his dominance in the classroom of theory.
In the second narrative, the situation is reversed. The court case is a realm of
application. Rava's mistake allows the students to turn the tide, demonstrating that
in the realm of theory, his ruling is wanting. It is they who are able to control the
topic by shifting the court case back into the theoretical discussion. Again, they have
learned their lesson well.
Rava's activist crusade to connect liability with immediate fault coincides with
an economic empathy for the bailee. Rava steps into the bailee's shoes, transporting
himself into his own curriculum of study. Rava's students' initial question derives
from their similar need to personify a theoretical discussion. He does not object to
the attempt, modeled after his own; he objects to its application. In the second
narrative, it is the students who remember empathyÐit is they who envision
themselves in Bei ¼ozai's shoes. The students remind Rava that the shift to fault
does not require a heavy hand for the negligent. The students intervene and
question the harshness of Rava's judgment. Rava is ashamed by the realization that
the very creative energies that establish his authority blind him to the empathic
opportunities a²orded by thorough pedestrian research.
The students' reminder, like their opening question, is a moment of pedagogy
in which they teach their own teacher. Rava is ashamed by his students because they
had realized the complexity of the case while he had not. He is further ashamed by
the implications of that realization. An individual's biases are often di³cult to
surmount and need to be addressed by outside intervention. Rava's students
demonstrate anew his need for themÐfor those who will contextualize his
teachings and realize when he has missed something or gone too far a®eld. He is