Rabbi Yose and Arius

While studying Rashi I came across an interesting comment of his on Deut 1:13

Provide yourselves men who are wise and understanding and well known to your tribes, and I shall appoint them as your heads.

(WISE) AND UNDERSTANDING – They can logically derive one thing from another. This is what Arius asked the Tanna R’ Yose about, when he asked, “What is the difference between ‘those who are wise’ and ‘those who are understanding’?” R’ Yose answered, ” ‘One who is wise’ is like a moneychanger. When they bring him dinars to examine, he examines. And when they do not bring him money to examine, he sits and wonders, i.e., he bides his time. ‘One who is understanding’ is like an enterprising moneychanger. When they bring him money to examine, he examines. And when they do not bring him money to examine, he goes about and brings in business on his own. Rashi ad loc.

This is quite remarkable, the footnote relates that this is the Arius, one of the great heretics in church history who taught, among other things, that the Son was not of the same substance as the Father and that he was not eternally begotten.

Whether this encounter historically took place can be questioned but lets assume for a moment that an encounter ocurred between Arius and a prominent Rabbi.

What made Arius inquire of the Rabbi? Furthermore why this question? Did encounters like this often take place? And if not, why did he pose a simple question like that and not something more difficult or perhaps something that he could not find an answer to among his Christian colleagues? Did he perhaps have more frequent encounters? If so, could these have influenced his ideas concerning the nature of God and the messiah?

To my knowledge this is the only theologian that is recalled by name in Rashi’s commentary on the Chumash, and not refuted. Could this imply some sort of sympathy for Arius?

While browsing the net I found that the Lubavitcher Rebbe also made some comments on this:

What was special about Rabbi Yose? The Gemara (Gittin 67a) tells us that Rabbi Yose always pursued the logical explanations for his opinions. Throughout Torah his system of study emphasized the need for clear logic and reason. Other Tannaim also pursued the logic of their teachings, but often when the ultimate intellectual explanation of a particular halachic ruling eluded them, they would rely on the principle that “if it is the halachah we accept it” (without understanding).

Rabbi Yose was not satisfied with that approach, and always demanded complete intellectual understanding, therefore, when it is Rabbi Yose who tells us that Moshe had to seek out truly understanding judges, we can understand his particular emphasis on this quality. [And since Rashi quotes the Sifri, it is clear that Rashi is in fact referring to Rabbi Yose the Tanna.]

So, when the sharp student asks why it is necessary to put so much effort into finding truly understanding judges, Rashi responds: First of all take note that this question was raised by a gentile, “Arius asked Rabbi Yose,” for after all, when the Torah says you must find men of understanding how can a Jew possibly think, “Why bother”?! The Jew must seek intellectual justification and rationalization but not harbor the opposite assumption?! This can only stem from “the goy that is within you.”

Nevertheless, since the Sifri considers the question and responds — it legitimatizes even this question. By mentioning the name of the questioner, Arius, Rashi stresses this point. The name Arius includes the letters of the word Or — light — symbolizing wisdom. For wisdom allows an honest question in understanding and being that Rabbi Yose responded and explained the need for understanding men, we realize that his answer is very specific and significant, for Rabbi Yose always sought understanding. Sichos In English, Volume 32, Shabbos Parshas Devorim, 4th Day Of Menachem Av, 5746

Furthermore the Lubavitcher Rebbe thought that this question concerned the Trinity saying that:

The difference between unity and trinity in Arius’s philosophy may be analogous to the difference between secular wisdom and understanding. Unity symbolizes the unitary spark of wisdom, while trinity alludes to the three stages of understanding.Therefore, Arius who represented unity (wisdom) questioned and challenged the “understanding” of trinity. Ibid.

Can you imagine, the Lubavitcher Rebbe during one of the farbrengens expounding on Arius:P

Whatever sparked Arius and Rabbi Yose’s exchange it would have been very interesting to be present during their conversation.