The stories of the political and religious struggles of Rabban Gamliel's reign as Nasi, both made and broke several precedents, which resulted in controversy and compromise. We have been the richer for them, and they have almost always served as guidelines in future disputes.Where these guidelines were ignored, disaster was never far behind. In the dispute with Rabbi Eliezer, a central Torah principle was at stake; the authority of the Sanhedrin. Rabbi Eliezer was, and remains, a most beloved figure in Jewish tradition. But he put his own convictions (NOT ambitions!) ahead of the halachic process. Rabban Gamliel was faced with the unenviable choice of honor for an esteemed colleague, and the most basic principles of Torah law. He did his duty as head of the Sanhedrin; preserving Torah. The Talmud is full of Rabbi Eliezer's statements and stories, but the halachah is never fixed according to his opinion. To what degree we consider an individual opinion, when it differs with the majority, is still a controversial matter. The fact that we have no valid Sanhedrin greatly lessens the obligation of majority rule, yet consensus remains a strong value in the halachic process. All sides in any disputer must bear in mind the story of Rabban Gamliel and Rabbi Eliezer. Another issue at stake was hereditary leadership. Kings were hereditary. But the Tanach is full of criticisms of bad Kings. There were those who risked their lives opposing some of the Kings, and publicly heaping criticism on them. Even today, the halachah remains (at least theoretically) that any halachic position of authority is to be passed down from father to son, providing the son is worthy, even if another candidate is more worthy than he. I said "theoretically", as this is not practiced in many situations. An explanations of this is provided by some twentieth century rabbis. The one Biblical position NOT passed down from father to son, is the position of Mashuach Milchamah; the Priest who would exhort the people before going into battle. The Torah considers his ability to encourage and strengthen the faith of the people, as overriding issues of pedigree. The modern day rabbi, in most cases, is less of a halachic authority, than one who teaches and brings near to Torah. He is more like the Mashuach Milchamah than the classical rabbi. He will defer on halachic issues to the more erudite. Nevertheless, when choosing a halachic authority, the heads of Yeshivot, and Hassidic Rebbes, heredity is a very major consideration. The memory of the struggle between Rabban Gamliel's hard line on hereditary authority, versus considerations of Rabbi Joshua's apparently superior knowledge and abilities, are still very much alive. Compromise has been reached. Another issue in these events is wealth. It is a basic foible of humanity to agree with Tevya; "when you're rich, they think you really know". People love to see pomp in leadership. But often, wealth does not mean either wisdom or integrity. Rabban Gamliel's remarks about Rabbi Joshua's poverty, which was apparently a common situation among the scholars which Rabban Gamliel was not even aware of, seems to reflect badly on him. But when he is made aware, he acknowledges the error in his ways, and makes full apology. But Rabbi Joshua is not quick to forgive Rabban Gamliel. A false peace is often worse than war. Only when Rabban Gamliel pleads for forgiveness in honor of his forebears, does Rabbi Joshua accept the apology. We must honor those in positions of leadership, but not grant them powers and authority beyond what they have earned. It must be remembered that these events took place shortly after the destruction of Jerusalem and the Temple, and before the Bar Kochba revolt. I find it remarkable that the great rabbis of that era were able to face the struggles of the place and meaning of Torah law in Jewish life, considering what was happening around them. We have struggles as well. We also have, thanks to those rabbis, a paradigm to base ourselves upon.