R’ Yitzhak - Ahab challenged Obadiah because righteous servants had brought blessing to Laban and Potiphar, whereas Ahab’s house was not blessed - I Kings 18:3; Genesis 30:27; Genesis 39:5

כתיב:

״ויקרא אחאב אל עבדיהו

אשר על הבית

ועבדיהו היה ירא [את] ה׳ מאד״.

מאי קאמר קרא?

It is written:

“And Ahab called Obadiah,

who was over the household;

now Obadiah feared YHWH greatly” (I Kings 18:3).

The Talmud asks: What is the verse saying?

What is the connection between Obadiah’s fear of YHWH and the call of Ahab?

אמר רבי יצחק:

אמר ליה:

• ביעקב כתיב

  • ״נחשתי, ויברכני ה׳ בגללך״,

• ביוסף כתיב

  • ״ויברך ה׳ את בית המצרי בגלל יוסף״.

ביתא דההוא גברא לא הוה מיבריך.

שמא לא ירא אלהים אתה?!

R’ Yitzḥak says that

Ahab said to Obadiah:

• It is written with regard to Jacob:

  • “And Laban said to him: If now I have found favor in your eyes, I have observed the signs, and YHWH has blessed me for your sake” (Genesis 30:27).

• It is written with regard to Joseph:

  • “YHWH blessed the Egyptian’s house for Joseph’s sake” (Genesis 39:5).

The house of that man, i.e., my [=Ahab’s] house, was not blessed.

Perhaps you [=Obadiah] do not fear God?!

A bat kol affirmed Obadiah’s righteousness, and blamed Ahab’s household

יצתה בת קול ואמרה:

״ועבדיהו היה ירא את ה׳ מאד״,

אבל ביתו של אחאב אינו מזומן לברכה.

Immediately, a bat kol emerged and said:

“Now Obadiah feared YHWH greatly,”

but the house of Ahab is not fit for blessing like the houses of those masters.

R’ Abba - Obadiah is praised more strongly than Abraham as a God-fearer, as Obadiah is described as fearing God “greatly”, while Abraham isn’t described as such - I Kings 18:3; Genesis 22:12

(See footnote.)1

אמר רבי אבא:

גדול שנאמר בעובדיהו

יותר ממה שנאמר באברהם:

• דאילו באברהם

  • לא כתיב ״מאד״,

• ובעובדיהו

  • כתיב ״מאד״.

R’ Abba says:

The praise that is stated with regard to Obadiah

is greater than that which is stated with regard to Abraham:

• As with regard to Abraham

  • the verse states: “For now I know that you fear God” (Genesis 22:12), and the term “greatly” (מאד) is not written,

• and about Obadiah

  • the term “greatly” is written.

R’ Yitzhak - Obadiah merited prophecy because he hid 100 prophets from Jezebel - I Kings 18:4

אמר רבי יצחק:

מפני מה זכה עובדיהו לנביאות?

מפני שהחביא מאה נביאים במערה,

R’ Yitzḥak says:

For what reason did Obadiah merit prophecy?

It is because he concealed 100 prophets in a cave,

שנאמר:

״ויהי בהכרית איזבל את נביאי ה׳

ויקח עבדיהו מאה נביאים

ויחביאם חמשים איש במערה וגו״.

as it is stated:

“It was so, when Jezebel cut off the prophets of YHWH,

that Obadiah took 100 prophets,

and hid them, 50 men in a cave,

and fed them with bread and water” (I Kings 18:4).

R’ Elazar - Obadiah divided the prophets into groups of 50 due to learning from Jacob’s strategy of dividing his camp so that one group might escape - I Kings 18:4; Genesis 32:9

מאי שנא חמשים איש?

אמר רבי אלעזר:

מיעקב למד,

שנאמר:

״והיה המחנה הנשאר לפליטה״.

The Talmud asks: What is different, i.e., why did he decide, to conceal 50 men in each of two caves and not conceal them all together in one cave?

R’ Elazar says:

He learned from the behavior of Jacob to do so,

as it is stated:

“And he said: If Esau comes to the one camp and strikes it,

then the camp that is left shall escape” (Genesis 32:9).

Obadiah learned from this to divide the prophets and thereby lessen the danger.

R’ Abbahu - Obadiah used two groups of 50 simply because a cave could not hold more than 50 people

רבי אבהו אמר:

לפי שאין מערה מחזקת יותר מחמשים.

R’ Abbahu says:

It is because there is no cave big enough to contain more than 50 people.

R’ Yitzhak - Obadiah was chosen to prophesy against Edom because he lived among the wicked Ahab and Jezebel without learning from them, whereas Esau lived among the righteous Isaac and Rebekah without learning from them - Obadiah 1:1

״חזון עבדיהו

כה אמר ה׳ אלהים לאדום וגו׳״.

מאי שנא עובדיה לאדום?

The verse states:

“The vision of Obadiah.

So says YHWH God concerning Edom:

We have heard a message from YHWH, and an ambassador is sent among the nations: Arise, and let us rise up against her in battle” (Obadiah 1:1).

The Talmud asks: What is different, i.e., what is the reason, that specifically Obadiah prophesied concerning Edom?

אמר רבי יצחק:

אמר הקדוש ברוך הוא:

• יבא עובדיהו

  • הדר בין שני רשעים

  • ולא למד ממעשיהם,

• וינבא על עשו הרשע

  • שדר בין שני צדיקים

  • ולא למד ממעשיהם.

R’ Yitzḥak says:

God said:

• Let Obadiah come,

  • who dwells among two wicked ones, Ahab and Jezebel,

  • but did not learn from their actions;

• and he will prophesy concerning Esau the wicked, the progenitor of Edom,

  • who dwelled among two righteous ones, Isaac and Rebekkah,

  • but did not learn from their actions.

Efrayim Miksha’a citing R’ Meir - Obadiah was an Edomite convert

אמר אפרים מקשאה, תלמידו של רבי מאיר, משום רבי מאיר:

עובדיה גר אדומי היה.

Efrayim Miksha’a, a student of R’ Meir, said in the name of R’ Meir:

Obadiah was an Edomite convert.

Consequently, he prophesied with regard to Edom.

Fitting the proverb that “the ax that destroys the forest comes from the forest itself”

והיינו דאמרי אינשי:

מניה וביה אבא ניזיל ביה נרגא.

And this is as people say:

From and within the forest (אבא) comes the ax (נרגא) to it,2

R’ Yohanan citing R’ Shimon ben Yohai - David’s punishment of Moab exemplifies the same proverb (as previous): destruction comes from within, since David descended from Ruth the Moabite - II Samuel 8:2

״ויך את מואב

וימדדם בחבל

השכב אותם ארצה״.

The verse states concerning King David:

“And he struck Moab

and measured them with the line,

making them lie down on the ground

and he measured two lines to put to death” (II Samuel 8:2).

אמר רבי יוחנן, משום רבי שמעון בן יוחי:

היינו דאמרי אינשי:

מיניה וביה אבא ליזיל ביה נרגא.

R’ Yoḥanan says in the name of R’ Shimon ben Yoḥai:

This is as people say:

From and within the forest comes the ax to it,

as King David was a descendant of Ruth the Moabite.

Rav Dimi - The same idea is expressed by the proverb: “A thigh rots from within” (i.e., punishment emerges from within the offending group itself) - II Samuel 8:2

כי אתא רב דימי אמר:

ירך מתוכה מסרחת.

When Rav Dimi came from Eretz Yisrael he stated something similar to this:

A thigh (ירך) rots3 from within,

Rav and Shmuel - They dispute whether the king of Moab sacrificed his son for the sake of Heaven or for idolatry - II Kings 3:27

״ויקח את בנו הבכור

אשר ימלך תחתיו

ויעלהו עלה על החמה״.

§ The Talmud cites a verse concerning the king of Moab:

“Then he took his eldest son,

who should have reigned in his stead,

and sacrificed him for a burnt offering upon the wall;

and there was great indignation against Israel, and they departed from him and returned to their own land” (II Kings 3:27).

רב ושמואל:

• חד אמר:

  • לשם שמים,

• וחד אמר:

  • לשם עבודה זרה.

Rav and Shmuel engage in a dispute concerning this:

• One says:

  • The king sacrificed his son for the sake of Heaven,

• and one says:

  • The king sacrificed his son for the sake of idol worship.

R’ Yehoshua ben Levi - resolving a contradiction between two verses in Ezekiel - Israel failed to imitate the good practices of the surrounding non-Jewish nations, but did imitate their corrupt practices - Ezekiel 5:7, 11:12

בשלמא למאן דאמר לשם שמים,

היינו דכתיב

״ויהי קצף גדול על ישראל״.

The Talmud asks:

Granted, according to the one who says that he sacrificed him for the sake of Heaven,

this is as it is written:

“And there was great indignation against Israel,”

as the non-Jewish king of Moab attempted to honor God according to his understanding, while the Jewish people were straying from worshipping God, leading to God’s anger against them.

אלא למאן דאמר לשם עבודה זרה,

אמאי ״ויהי קצף״?

But according to the one who says that he sacrificed him for the sake of idol worship,

why would the verse state: “And there was…indignation”?

כדרבי יהושע בן לוי,

דרבי יהושע בן לוי רמי:

• כתיב

  • ״וכמשפטי הגוים אשר סביבותיכם לא עשיתם״,

• וכתיב

  • ״וכמשפטי הגוים אשר סביבותיכם עשיתם״.

• כמתוקנין שבהם ⁠–

  • לא עשיתם,

• כמקולקלין שבהם ⁠–

  • עשיתם.

The Talmud answers: This can be understood in accordance with the statement of R’ Yehoshua ben Levi.

As R’ Yehoshua ben Levi raises a contradiction:

• It is written concerning the Jewish people:

  • “You have not walked in My statutes, neither have you kept My ordinances; nor have you done according to the statutes of the nations that are round about you” (Ezekiel 5:7),

• and it is also written:

  • “You have done according to the statutes of the nations that are round about you” (Ezekiel 11:12).

R’ Yehoshua ben Levi explains:

• like the proper ones (מתוקנין) among the non-Jewish nations,

  • you did not act

• but like the flawed ones (מקולקלין) among them

  • you did act

Here as well, the Jewish people learned from the king of Moab to engage in human sacrifice.

R’ Hanina bar Pappa - After the Moab episode, Israel fell to the lowest spiritual level; “they returned to the land” is read as “descent toward the earth” - II Kings 3:27

״ויסעו מעליו וישובו לארץ״.

אמר רבי חנינא בר פפא:

באותה שעה ירדו שונאיהן של ישראל למדריגה התחתונה.

The Talmud discusses the end of that verse: “And they departed from him and returned to their own land [la’aretz]” (II Kings 3:27).

R’ Ḥanina bar Pappa says:

At that time the enemies of the Jewish people, a euphemism for the Jewish people themselves, descended to the lowest level.

He interprets “la’aretz” to mean “to the earth,” teaching that the Jewish people were as low as the dust of the earth.

R’ Hanina bar Pappa - Abishag’s beauty did not reach even half of Sarah’s beauty; “up to very beautiful” excludes the full degree of “very beautiful” attributed to Sarah - I Kings 1:4; Genesis 12:14

״והנערה יפה עד מאד״.

אמר רבי חנינא בר פפא:

עדיין לא הגיעה לחצי יופי של שרה,

דכתיב ״עד מאד״⁠ ⁠–

ולא מאד בכלל.

The chapter closes with the explication of a verse stated with regard to Abishag, who attended King David before his death:

“And the young woman (נערה) was very fair [yafa ad me’od ]” (I Kings 1:4).

R’ Ḥanina bar Pappa says:

She still did not reach half the beauty of Sarah,

as it is written: “Ad me’od,” which can be translated as “up to very fair,”

but not including the praise of “very fair.”

By contrast, it is written concerning Sarah: “She was very fair” (Genesis 12:14).

Appendix - Comparing the Talmud’s interpretations with those of modern scholars

Our sugya reads the description of “the prostitutes” washing at the pool of Samaria (I Kings 22:38) in two ways: R’ Elazar interprets the word as an allusion to prophetic “visions,” specifically those of Micaiah and Elijah; Rava understands it as referring to (pornographic) images of prostitutes placed in Ahab’s chariot. Modern commentators generally take the Hebrew zonot in its ordinary sense, “prostitutes.”

The verse itself explicitly presents Ahab’s death as fulfilling a divine prediction, especially Elijah’s prophecy concerning dogs licking his blood. Critical commentators, however, also note a difficulty that the Talmud does not emphasize: Elijah’s prophecy places this punishment where Naboth’s blood was shed, apparently Jezreel, whereas Ahab’s blood is washed away at Samaria. Some scholars therefore treat the present verse as a secondary literary attempt to connect Ahab’s death with the Naboth narrative, or at least as only an approximate fulfillment of the earlier prediction.

Similarly, the Talmud’s reading of the archer’s le-tummo as an allusion to the “completion” of two prophecies is midrashic wordplay. A historical-critical reading simply understands the phrase as describing an unaimed or random shot. The literary point is nevertheless related to the Talmudic one: Ahab is killed by an anonymous archer who was not deliberately targeting him, making his death appear accidental on the human level while fulfilling the prophetic narrative on the theological level.

The treatment of Obadiah involves a more substantial historical divergence. The Talmud identifies the palace official Obadiah of I Kings 18 with the prophet Obadiah and then asks why this particular individual was chosen to prophesy against Edom. Modern scholarship normally distinguishes the two: “Obadiah” was a common Israelite name, and nothing in the Book of Obadiah identifies its author with Ahab’s official.4 I Kings itself describes the latter as a high-ranking palace administrator who secretly protected prophets during Jezebel’s persecution; modern commentators generally read these details as part of the Elijah narrative without connecting him to the later prophetic book.

This distinction also changes the interpretation of Obadiah’s prophecy against Edom. The Talmud explains it biographically: Obadiah lived among Ahab and Jezebel without imitating them, whereas Esau lived among Isaac and Rebekah without imitating them; another tradition makes Obadiah himself an Edomite convert. Critical scholarship instead tends to explain the book through the historical conflict between Judah and Edom. Many scholars date at least substantial portions of Obadiah to the Babylonian destruction of Jerusalem in 586 BCE or its aftermath, when Edom was remembered as having exploited Judah’s catastrophe. On that reconstruction, the hostility toward Edom reflects sixth-century political experience rather than the personal ancestry of the prophet. The dating and compositional history remain disputed, but an exilic or postexilic setting has long been prominent in critical scholarship.

The episode of the king of Moab sacrificing his firstborn son in II Kings 3:27 presents perhaps the closest contact between the Talmud’s questions and modern scholarship. Rav and Shmuel debate whether the sacrifice was offered “for the sake of Heaven” or to an idol. Modern interpreters overwhelmingly understand Mesha as sacrificing his son to the Moabite national god Chemosh. The act belongs naturally within the religious world attested for Moab, and Mesha’s own inscription repeatedly presents Chemosh as the divine patron responsible for Moab’s military fortunes.

The more difficult problem is the next phrase: “there was great wrath against Israel,” after which the Israelite coalition retreats. Here modern scholarship remains divided, just as the Talmud recognized that the verse demands explanation. Some understand the “wrath” as divine anger, though it is unclear why YHWH would punish Israel after having authorized the campaign. Others understand it as the effect of Mesha’s sacrifice, perhaps reflecting the narrator’s recognition that the sacrifice successfully mobilized divine power according to the religious assumptions of the story.

Part 1

This sugya develops a sequence of interpretations centered on Ahab (King of Israel, mid-9th century BCE), Obadiah, Edom, and Moab. The passage is held together by several recurring themes: divine punishment, fulfillment of prophecy, the moral effect of one’s environment, and the idea that punishment can arise from within the very group being punished. Its arguments characteristically turn on unusual biblical wording, grammatical details, and verbal associations.

The sugya opens with Ahab’s death. The statement that “the song went throughout the camp” (I Kings 22:36) is linked to Proverbs 11:10, “When the wicked perish, there is song.” This leads to an apparent contradiction: if the death of the wicked occasions rejoicing, why do other traditions state that God does not rejoice in their destruction? R’ Yonatan points to the omission of “for He is good” from the praise recited after a military victory, and the Talmud cites the tradition that God prevented the angels from singing while the Egyptians drowned at the Red Sea. R’ Yosei bar Hanina resolves the tension by distinguishing between God and others: God does not Himself rejoice, though He causes others to rejoice. Deuteronomy 28:63 is read grammatically to support this distinction.

The discussion then returns to the details of Ahab’s death in I Kings 22. R’ Elazar interprets the phrase “the prostitutes washed” as an allusion to the fulfillment of two prophetic “visions,” those of Micaiah (disciple of Elijah) and Elijah. Ahab’s death fulfills Micaiah’s declaration that he would not return safely, while the dogs licking his blood fulfills Elijah’s prophecy concerning Naboth. Rava instead understands the “prostitutes” as (pornographic) images placed in Ahab’s chariot by his wife Jezebel. A similar split appears in interpreting the archer who struck Ahab le-tummo: R’ Elazar takes the phrase to mean that he shot innocently or without aiming at Ahab, while Rava reads it as an allusion to the “completion” of the two prophecies.

Part 2

The sugya next turns to Obadiah, described in I Kings 18:3 as one who “feared YHWH greatly.” R’ Yitzhak states that Ahab challenged him: Jacob brought blessing to Laban and Joseph to Potiphar, so why had Obadiah brought no comparable blessing to Ahab’s household? A bat kol answers that the problem lies with Ahab’s house, not with Obadiah. R’ Abba further notes that Obadiah is described as fearing God “greatly,” language stronger than that used of Abraham.

Obadiah’s righteousness is then connected with his prophetic career. He merited prophecy because he hid 100 prophets from Jezebel. The detail that he divided them into two groups of 50 is explained either as a strategy learned from Jacob’s division of his camp before meeting Esau or simply as the maximum capacity of a cave. The Talmud then asks why Obadiah specifically prophesied against Edom. One answer contrasts Obadiah, who lived among Ahab and Jezebel without imitating them, with Esau, who lived among Isaac and Rebekah without imitating them. Another tradition identifies Obadiah as an Edomite convert.

This produces the proverb that “the ax that destroys the forest comes from the forest itself”: punishment emerges from within. The same principle is applied to David’s punishment of Moab, since David descended from Ruth the Moabite. Rav Dimi expresses the idea with a second proverb: “A thigh rots from within.”

The final major unit concerns the king of Moab’s sacrifice of his firstborn son in II Kings 3:27.2 Rav and Shmuel dispute whether the act was intended “for the sake of Heaven” or as idolatry. If the former, the resulting “great indignation against Israel” reflects the contrast between the Moabite king’s extreme devotion and Israel’s own failings. If the latter, the Talmud explains the indignation through R’ Yehoshua ben Levi’s reading of Ezekiel: Israel failed to imitate the proper practices of surrounding nations but did imitate their corrupt ones. R’ Hanina bar Pappa concludes that after this episode Israel descended to the lowest spiritual level, reading “they returned to the land” as a figurative descent toward the earth.

The sugya thus moves from Ahab’s punishment and prophetic fulfillment, to Obadiah’s righteousness under corrupt rule, and finally to Edom and Moab as cases in which judgment emerges from within a people itself. Throughout, brief textual irregularities become the basis for broader claims about divine justice, moral character, and the consequences of one’s environment.

Outline

Intro

The Passage

1. R’ Aha bar Hanina - The “song” after Ahab’s death refers to the general principle that there is rejoicing when the wicked perish - I Kings 22:36; Proverbs 11:10

2. R’ Yonatan - The phrase “for He is good” is omitted from the praise after victory because God does not rejoice at the downfall of the wicked - II Chronicles 20:21; cf. Psalms 118:1

3. R’ Shmuel bar Nahman citing R’ Yonatan - At the Red Sea, God prevented the angels from singing because the Egyptians, His creatures, were drowning - Exodus 14:20

4. R’ Yosei bar Hanina - God Himself does not rejoice at the destruction of the wicked, though He causes others to rejoice

   1. The causative form yasis supports this distinction - Deuteronomy 28:63

5. R’ Elazar - “The prostitutes washed” is read as an allusion to the fulfillment of two prophetic visions concerning Ahab, those of Micaiah and Elijah - I Kings 22:38, 28, 21:19

6. Rava - “prostitutes” means actual images of prostitutes that Jezebel placed in Ahab’s chariot to arouse him - I Kings 22:38

7. R’ Elazar - The archer who struck Ahab did so innocently and without specifically aiming at him - I Kings 22:34

8. Rava - Le-tummo alludes to “completing” the two prophetic visions of Micaiah and Elijah through Ahab’s death

Part 2

1. R’ Yitzhak - Ahab challenged Obadiah because righteous servants had brought blessing to Laban and Potiphar, whereas Ahab’s house was not blessed - I Kings 18:3; Genesis 30:27; Genesis 39:5

   1. A bat kol affirmed Obadiah’s righteousness, and blamed Ahab’s household

2. R’ Abba - Obadiah is praised more strongly than Abraham as a God-fearer, as Obadiah is described as fearing God “greatly”, while Abraham isn’t described as such - I Kings 18:3; Genesis 22:12

3. R’ Yitzhak - Obadiah merited prophecy because he hid 100 prophets from Jezebel - I Kings 18:4

4. R’ Elazar - Obadiah divided the prophets into groups of 50 due to learning from Jacob’s strategy of dividing his camp so that one group might escape - I Kings 18:4; Genesis 32:9

5. R’ Abbahu - Obadiah used two groups of 50 simply because a cave could not hold more than 50 people

6. R’ Yitzhak - Obadiah was chosen to prophesy against Edom because he lived among the wicked Ahab and Jezebel without learning from them, whereas Esau lived among the righteous Isaac and Rebekah without learning from them - Obadiah 1:1

7. Efrayim Miksha’a citing R’ Meir - Obadiah was an Edomite convert

   1. Fitting the proverb that “the ax that destroys the forest comes from the forest itself”

8. R’ Yohanan citing R’ Shimon ben Yohai - David’s punishment of Moab exemplifies the same proverb (as previous): destruction comes from within, since David descended from Ruth the Moabite - II Samuel 8:2

9. Rav Dimi - The same idea is expressed by the proverb: “A thigh rots from within” (i.e., punishment emerges from within the offending group itself) - II Samuel 8:2

10. Rav and Shmuel - They dispute whether the king of Moab sacrificed his son for the sake of Heaven or for idolatry - II Kings 3:27

11. R’ Yehoshua ben Levi - resolving a contradiction between two verses in Ezekiel - Israel failed to imitate the good practices of the surrounding non-Jewish nations, but did imitate their corrupt practices- Ezekiel 5:7, 11:12

12. R’ Hanina bar Pappa - After the Moab episode, Israel fell to the lowest spiritual level; “they returned to the land” is read as “descent toward the earth” - II Kings 3:27

13. R’ Hanina bar Pappa - Abishag’s beauty did not reach even half of Sarah’s beauty; “up to very beautiful” excludes the full degree of “very beautiful” attributed to Sarah - I Kings 1:4; Genesis 12:14

Appendix - Comparing the Talmud’s interpretations with those of modern scholars

The Passage

Sanhedrin/39b#3 thru #21

R’ Aha bar Hanina - The “song” after Ahab’s death refers to the general principle that there is rejoicing when the wicked perish - I Kings 22:36; Proverbs 11:10

לפיכך כל אחד ואחד כו׳.

״ויעבר הרנה במחנה״.

§ The Mishnah teaches: Therefore, since all humanity descends from one person, each and every person is obligated to say: The world was created for me. The Mishnah then teaches that the court says to the witnesses: And perhaps you will say: Why would we want to be responsible for the blood of this person? But be aware, as is it not already stated: “When the wicked perish, there is song” (Proverbs 11:10)?

The Talmud teaches: A separate verse relates that after the evil king Ahab was killed:

“And the song went throughout the camp” (I Kings 22:36).

אמר רבי אחא בר חנינא:

״באבד רשעים —

רנה״⁠ ⁠–

באבוד אחאב בן עמרי —

רנה.

R’ Aḥa bar Ḥanina says:

The fact that the verse states “the song,” and not a song, indicates that it is referring to a song mentioned elsewhere. Accordingly, the verse:

“When the wicked perish —

there is song,”

alludes to this episode: When Ahab ben Omri perished --

there was song.

R’ Yonatan - The phrase “for He is good” is omitted from the praise after victory because God does not rejoice at the downfall of the wicked - II Chronicles 20:21; cf. Psalms 118:1

(See footnote.)3

ומי חדי קודשא בריך הוא במפלתן של רשעים?

הכתיב:

״בצאת לפני החלוץ

ואמרים:

הודו לה׳

כי לעולם חסדו״.

The Talmud asks:

But is God gladdened by the downfall of the wicked?

Isn’t it written in the verse describing the victory of the Jewish people in battle:

“He appointed them that should sing unto YHWH, and praise in the beauty of holiness,

as they went out before the army,

and say:

Give thanks to YHWH,

for His mercy endures forever” (II Chronicles 20:21).

ואמר רבי יונתן:

מפני מה לא נאמר בהודאה זו:

״כי טוב״?

לפי שאין הקדוש ברוך הוא שמח במפלתן של רשעים.

And R’ Yonatan says:

For what reason is it not stated in this praise:

“Give thanks to YHWH for He is good,

for His mercy endures forever,”

as is stated elsewhere, e.g., Psalms 118:1?

This is because God is not gladdened by the downfall of the wicked.

R’ Shmuel bar Nahman citing R’ Yonatan - At the Red Sea, God prevented the angels from singing because the Egyptians, His creatures, were drowning - Exodus 14:20

דאמר רבי שמואל בר נחמן, אמר רבי יונתן:

מאי דכתיב

״ולא קרב זה אל זה כל הלילה״

The Talmud comments:

As R’ Shmuel bar Naḥman says that R’ Yonatan says:

What is the meaning of that which is written in the passage describing the splitting of the Red Sea:

“And the one came not near the other all the night” (Exodus 14:20)

באותה שעה בקשו מלאכי השרת לומר שירה לפני הקדוש ברוך הוא.

אמר להן הקדוש ברוך הוא:

מעשה ידי טובעין בים

ואתם אומרים שירה לפני?!

At that time the ministering angels desired to recite a song before God.

God said to them:

My handiwork, i.e., the Egyptians, are drowning in the sea,

and you are reciting a song before Me?!

Apparently, God is not gladdened by the downfall of the wicked.

R’ Yosei bar Hanina - God Himself does not rejoice at the destruction of the wicked, though He causes others to rejoice

אמר רבי יוסי בר חנינא:

• הוא

  • אינו שש,

• אבל אחרים

  • משיש.

R’ Yosei bar Ḥanina says:

• He, i.e., God,

  • does not rejoice (שש) in their downfall,

• but others

  • He does cause to feel joy (משיש).

The causative form yasis supports this distinction - Deuteronomy 28:63

דיקא נמי,

דכתיב ״ישיש״

ולא כתיב ״ישוש״.

שמע מינה.

The Talmud comments:

Accordingly, the language of the verse is also precise,

as it is written: “And it shall come to pass, that as YHWH rejoiced over you to do you good, and to multiply you; so YHWH will cause rejoicing [yasis] over you to cause you to perish” (Deuteronomy 28:63),

and it is not written: “Will have joy [yasus].”

The term “yasis” connotes causing joy to others, not that God will experience joy Himself.

The Talmud affirms: Conclude from this inference that it is so.

R’ Elazar - “The prostitutes washed” is read as an allusion to the fulfillment of two prophetic visions concerning Ahab, those of Micaiah and Elijah - I Kings 22:38, 28, 21:19

״והזנות רחצו וגו׳״,

אמר רבי אלעזר:

למרק שתי חזיונות,

• אחת של מיכיהו

• ואחת של אליהו.

Apropos the death of Ahab, the Talmud cites another verse from that passage. The verse states:

“And they washed the chariot by the pool of Samaria, and the dogs licked up his blood;

and the prostitutes also washed themselves there, according to the word of YHWH that He spoke” (I Kings 22:38).

R’ Elazar says:

“The prostitutes [ha-zonot]” can be read as visions [ḥezyonot], and the verse means:

To cleanse, i.e., to fulfill, two visions:

• one of Micaiah

• and one of Elijah.

• במיכיהו כתיב:

  • ״אם שוב תשוב בשלום, לא דבר ה׳ בי״;

• באליהו כתיב:

  • ״במקום אשר לקקו הכלבים את דם נבות״.

• This fulfills a vision of Micaiah,

  • as it is written: “If you return at all in peace, YHWH has not spoken by me” (I Kings 22:28). Once Ahab died, Micaiah’s vision was fulfilled.

• This also fulfills a vision of Elijah,

  • as it is written: “In the place where the dogs licked the blood of Naboth shall the dogs lick your blood, even yours” (I Kings 21:19).

Rava - “prostitutes” means actual images of prostitutes that Jezebel placed in Ahab’s chariot to arouse him - I Kings 22:38

רבא אמר:

זונות ממש.

אחאב איש מצונן היה,

ועשתה לו איזבל שתי צורי זונות במרכבתו,

כדי שיראה אותן ויתחמם.

Rava says:

The verse is speaking of actual prostitutes.

Ahab was a frigid4 man,

And Jezebel, his wife, fashioned two forms of prostitutes for him in his chariot,

in order that he see them while traveling and become aroused.5

Accordingly, one would understand the verse as stating that the prostitutes were washed, not that they washed themselves.

R’ Elazar - The archer who struck Ahab did so innocently and without specifically aiming at him - I Kings 22:34

״ואיש משך בקשת לתמו

ויכה״.

רבי אלעזר אמר:

לפי תומו.

The verse describing the death of Ahab states:

“And a certain man drew a bow offhandedly [le-tummo]

and struck the king of Israel” (I Kings 22:34).

R’ Elazar says:

“Le-tummo” should be understood as offhandedly6

without aiming for Ahab.

Rava - Le-tummo alludes to “completing” the two prophetic visions of Micaiah and Elijah through Ahab’s death

רבא אמר:

לתמם שתי חזיונות:

• אחת של מיכיהו

• ואחת של אליהו.

Rava says:

This alludes to the fact that the killing of Ahab served to make whole [letammem] two visions:

• one of Micaiah

• and one of Elijah.

Attempted Proof #2 - from Terah’s family (c. 20th century BCE)

See family tree at Hebrew Wikipedia, “תרח”, section “עץ משפחה”; screenshot of the relevant part:

Table:

If Abram was 2 years older than Haran, and Sarah/Iscah was Haran’s daughter and 10 years younger than Abraham, Haran must have fathered Sarah at age 8 - Genesis 11:27, 29: 17:17

אלא מהכא:

״אלה תולדת תרח:

תרח הוליד

1. את אברם

2. את נחור

3. ואת הרן״.

Rather, it is from here that one can deduce that in earlier generations men fathered children at the age of 8, as it is written:

“And these are the generations of Terah:

Terah fathered1

1. Abram,

2. Nahor,

3. and Haran” (Genesis 11:27).

ואברהם גדול מנחור שנה,

ונחור גדול מהרן שנה.

נמצא אברהם גדול שתי שנים מהרן.

And Abraham was at least 1 year older than Nahor,2

and Nahor was 1 year older than Haran,

so it turns out that Abraham was 2 years older than Haran.

R” Yitzhak - Iscah is Sarah

(See footnote.)3

וכתיב:

״ויקח אברם ונחור להם נשים וגו׳״.

ואמר רבי יצחק:

״יסכה״ זו שרה

And it is written:

“And Abram and Nahor took wives for themselves;

the name of Abram’s wife was Sarai and the name of Nahor’s wife was Milka, daughter of Haran, father of Milka and father of Iscah” (Genesis 11:29).

And R’ Yitzḥak says:

Iscah is in fact Sarah.

Sarah was called Iscah because she perceived through the Holy Spirit - Genesis 11:29; 21:12

ולמה נקרא שמה ״יסכה״?

שסוכה ברוח הקדש.

והיינו דכתיב:

״כל אשר תאמר אליך שרה שמע בקלה״.

And why was she called Iscah?

Because she envisioned [she-sokha] hidden matters by means of Holy Spirit.

And this explains what is written:

“In all that Sarah has said to you,

hearken to her voice” (Genesis 21:12).

Alternatively, Sarah was called Iscah because everyone gazed upon her beauty

דבר אחר:

״יסכה״

שהכל סכים ביופיה.

Alternatively,

Sarah was also called Iscah,

because all gazed [sokhim] upon her beauty.

וכתיב:

״ויפל [אברהם] על פניו ויצחק

ויאמר בלבו וגו׳״.

And it is written:

“And Abraham fell upon his face, and laughed,

and said in his heart:

Shall a child be born to him that is 100 years old?!

And shall Sarah, who is 90 years old, give birth?!” (Genesis 17:17).

כמה קשיש אברהם משרה?

עשר שנין.

וקשיש מאבוה תרתין שנין.

How much older was Abraham than Sarah?

He was 10 years older than her

And, as stated above, he was 2 years older than her father, Haran.

אשתכח

כי אולדה הרן לשרה --

בתמני אולדה.

It turns out then that

when Haran fathered Sarah --

he fathered her at the age of 8.

Rejection of the proof from Haran: Abraham may actually have been the youngest brother, with Scripture listing Terah’s sons according to wisdom rather than age - Genesis 11:27

ממאי?

דלמא אברהם זוטא דאחוה הוה,

ודרך חכמתן קא חשיב להו.

The Talmud refutes this proof: From where do you prove this?

Perhaps Abraham was the youngest of the brothers, and not the oldest among them.

The fact that Abraham is listed first is no proof that he was the oldest, as perhaps the verse listed them in the order of their wisdom

and therefore Abraham, being the wisest, was mentioned first.

Proof that biblical sibling lists need not follow birth order from Noah’s sons

תדע דקא חשיב להו קרא דרך חכמתן,

Know that it is true that the verse sometimes lists brothers not according to their birth order, but in the order of their degrees of wisdom,

If Shem were oldest the chronology would make him 102 when Arpachshad was born, whereas Scripture says he was 100; Shem was listed first because of wisdom, not age - Genesis 5:32: 7:6; 11:10

וכתיב:

״ויהי נח בן חמש מאות שנה

ויולד נח

1. את שם

2. את חם

3. ואת יפת״.

as it is written:

“And Noah was 500 years old;

and Noah fathered

1. Shem,

2. Ham,

3. and Japheth” (Genesis 5:32).

שם גדול מחם שנה,

וחם גדול מיפת שנה.

נמצא שם גדול מיפת שתי שנים.

According to this, Shem was at least 1 year older than Ham,

and Ham 1 year older than Japheth,

so it turns out that Shem was 2 years older than Japheth.

וכתיב:

״ונח בן שש מאות שנה והמבול היה מים על הארץ״.

וכתיב:

״(ואלה) תולדת שם

שם בן מאת שנה

ויולד את ארפכשד שנתים אחר המבול״.

בן מאה שנה?!

בר מאה ותרתין שנין הוה!

And it is written:

“And Noah was 600 years old when the Flood of waters was upon the earth” (Genesis 7:6).

And it is written:

“These are the descendants of Shem;

Shem was 100 years old,

and fathered Arpachshad 2 years after the Flood” (Genesis 11:10).

If Shem was the oldest brother, how could he be only 100 years old?!

He must have been at least 102 years old,

as Noah was 500 years old when his third son was born, and he was 600 years old at the time of the Flood.

• אלא,

  • דרך חכמתן קא חשיב להו.

• הכא נמי,

  • דרך חכמתן קא חשיב להו.

• Rather,

  • the verse listed them in the order of their degrees of wisdom, Shem being the wisest. With regard to his age, Shem was the youngest of the brothers, having been born when Noah was 502 years old. Shem fathered his son 100 years later, which was 2 years after the Flood.

• Here too, then, with regard to the sons of Terah,

  • it can be argued that the verse lists them in the order of their degrees of wisdom.

Rav Kahana citing Rav Zevid of Neharde’a - rather than deriving Shem’s younger status by chronological calculation, his tradition derives it directly from the description of Shem as “the brother of Japheth the elder,” showing Japheth was older - Genesis 10:21

אמר רב כהנא:

אמריתה לשמעתא קמיה דרב זביד מנהרדעא.

אמר לי:

אתון מהכא מתניתו,

ואנן מהכא מתנינן לה:

״ולשם ילד גם הוא

אבי כל בני עבר

אחי יפת הגדול״.

יפת הגדול שבאחיו הוה.

Rav Kahana says:

I stated this discussion before Rav Zevid of Neharde’a.

When he heard it, he said to me:

You learn that Shem was not Noah’s oldest son from there,

and we learn it from here:

“And to Shem,

to him also were children born

the father of all the children of Eber,

the brother of Japheth the elder,” (Genesis 10:21).

This verse indicates that Japheth, rather than Shem, was the oldest of the brothers.

Attempted Proof #3 - Proof from Caleb, Hur, Uri, and Bezalel (c. 13th century BCE): Bezalel was at least 13 when he made the Tabernacle, and 14 when the spies were sent Caleb was then 40; Subtracting Bezalel’s 14 years and 2 years for 3 pregnancies leaves 24 years for 3 generations, so each generation fathered a child at age 8 - Exodus 38:22; I Chronicles 2:19-20; Exodus 36:4; Joshua 14:7, 10

אלא מנלן?

• מהכא:

  • ״ובצלאל בן אורי בן חור, למטה יהודה״,

• וכתיב:

  • ״ותמת עזובה אשת כלב, ויקח לו כלב את אפרת, ותלד לו את חור״.

The Talmud asks: Rather, from where do we derive that in earlier generations men fathered children at the age of 8?

• From here, as it is written:

  • “And Bezalel, son of Uri, son of Hur, of the tribe of Judah, made all that YHWH commanded Moses” (Exodus 38:22).

• And it is written:

  • “And Azubah died, and Caleb took for himself Ephrat, who bore him Hur. And Hur fathered Uri, and Uri fathered Bezalel” (I Chronicles 2:19–20).

Baraita - Moses made the Tabernacle in the 1st year after the Exodus; in the 2nd year he erected it and sent the Spies

וכי עבד בצלאל משכן בר כמה הוי?

בר תליסר,

דכתיב:

״איש איש ממלאכתו אשר המה עשים״.

And when Bezalel made the Tabernacle how old was he?

He must have been at least 13 years old,

as it is written:

“And all the wise men that carried out all the work of the sanctuary, came every man (איש) from his work that they did” (Exodus 36:4),4

ותניא:

• שנה ראשונה

  • עשה משה משכן,

• שניה

  • הקים משכן

  • ושלח מרגלים.

And it is taught in a baraita:

• In the 1st year following the Exodus from Egypt

  • Moses made the Tabernacle;

• in the 2nd year

  • he erected the Tabernacle

  • and sent out the spies.

וכתיב:

״בן ארבעים שנה אנכי בשלח משה עבד ה׳ וגו׳״,

״ועתה הנה אנכי היום בן חמש ושמנים שנה״.

כמה הויא להו?

ארבעין.

דל ארביסר דהוה בצלאל,

פשא להו עשרים ושית.

דל תרתי שני דתלתא עיבורי,

אשתכח דכל חד וחד בתמני אוליד.

And it is written that Caleb, Bezalel’s great-grandfather, said to Joshua:

“I was 40 years old when Moses the servant of YHWH sent me from Kadesh Barnea to spy out the land” (Joshua 14:7).

And he added: “And now, behold, I am this day 85 years old” (Joshua 14:10).

How many years old was Caleb when he was sent off with the Twelve Spies?

He was 40.

Subtract 14 years, as Bezalel was at least 14 years old when Caleb was sent to spy out the land.5

This leaves 26 years.

Subtract 2 more years for 3 pregnancies,6

It turns out that 3 generations were born in 24 years, and that each and every parent fathered a child at the age of 8.

Part 1

This sugya addresses whether a boy as young as 8 years old can be regarded as physiologically capable of fathering a child.1 The immediate legal dispute is between Beit Shammai and Beit Hillel. According to Babylonian amoraim cited by the sugya, they disagree about an 8-year-old: Beit Shammai hold that the capacities attested among “earlier (=biblical) generations” can be used to establish what is biologically possible, whereas Beit Hillel reject such an inference. The ensuing discussion therefore becomes an extended attempt to prove from biblical chronology that males in earlier generations did in fact father children at age 8.

The Talmud’s method is genealogical and arithmetical. It combines biblical statements about parentage with fixed ages and chronological intervals, then subtracts the time occupied by pregnancies. If several successive generations can be fitted into a sufficiently short span, the resulting calculation can establish unusually early paternity. Much of the sugya consists of proposing such calculations and then testing whether the biblical evidence actually requires the assumed ages and birth order.

The first attempted proof uses the family of Ahithophel. II Samuel identifies Bathsheba as the daughter of Eliam2 and elsewhere identifies Eliam as the son of Ahithophel, making Bathsheba Ahithophel’s granddaughter. The Talmud then reconstructs the chronology between Solomon’s birth and Ahithophel’s death during Absalom’s rebellion. Solomon had already been born before the events surrounding Amnon and Absalom. Two years passed before Absalom’s sheepshearing and the killing of Amnon; Absalom then spent 3 years in Geshur and another 2 years in Jerusalem before being fully reconciled with David. His rebellion followed thereafter, and Ahithophel died during that rebellion. The sugya therefore treats Solomon as at least 7 years old at Ahithophel’s death.

A baraita supplies another crucial figure: Ahithophel lived only 33 years. This is connected with Psalms 55:24, “bloody and deceitful men shall not live out half their days,” and the same tradition gives Doeg a lifespan of 34 years. Subtracting Solomon’s 7 years from Ahithophel’s 33 leaves 26 years between Ahithophel’s own birth and Solomon’s birth. The chain from Ahithophel to Solomon contains 3 births: Ahithophel fathered Eliam, Eliam fathered Bathsheba, and Bathsheba bore Solomon. After subtracting 2 years for the 3 pregnancies, 24 years remain for the ages of the 3 parents at conception or birth. Divided evenly, this produces an age of 8 for each generation.

The proof, however, is rejected because the arithmetic does not establish that the 24 years were distributed equally. Ahithophel and Eliam could each have fathered children at age 9, while Bathsheba could have given birth at age 6. The Talmud specifically allows for the possibility that females could become reproductively capable earlier than males. Bathsheba’s history makes this possibility especially relevant, since Solomon was not her first child by David. The chronology therefore establishes an unusually compressed genealogy, but it does not specifically prove male paternity at age 8.

Part 2

The sugya next turns to the family of Terah. Genesis lists his sons as Abram, Nahor, and Haran. Reading the list as birth order would make Abraham one year older than Nahor and two years older than Haran. The argument then identifies Sarah with Iscah, daughter of Haran, following R. Yitzhak. This identification prompts a short exegetical digression on Sarah’s alternate name. One explanation derives “Iscah” from her capacity to perceive through the Holy Spirit, connected with God’s instruction to Abraham to listen to Sarah. Another derives the name from the fact that everyone gazed upon her beauty.

Genesis 17 states that Abraham was 100 and Sarah 90, establishing a 10-year age difference between them. If Abraham was 2 years older than Sarah’s father Haran, then Haran was only 8 years older than Sarah. Haran must therefore have fathered Sarah at age 8. This would provide precisely the case sought by the sugya: an identifiable male in an earlier biblical generation becoming a father at that age.

Here too, however, the proof depends on an assumption that can be challenged. The listing of Abram, Nahor, and Haran need not represent birth order. Abraham could have been the youngest brother but listed first because of his superior wisdom. The Talmud demonstrates the legitimacy of this reading by comparing Noah’s sons. Genesis lists Shem, Ham, and Japheth in that order, but other chronological data show that Shem cannot have been the oldest.

Noah was 500 when he began fathering the sons listed in Genesis 5, and he was 600 when the Flood began. Genesis 11 nevertheless states that Shem was 100 years old when he fathered Arpachshad 2 years after the Flood. If Shem had been Noah’s oldest son, the chronology would make him approximately 102 at that point. His stated age of 100 shows that the order “Shem, Ham, Japheth” is not straightforward birth order. Shem is placed first because of his wisdom or importance. By analogy, Abraham’s placement first among Terah’s sons cannot establish that he was the oldest.

Rav Kahana then reports a variant tradition from Rav Zevid of Neharde’a. Rather than deriving Japheth’s seniority through the numerical chronology, this tradition reads it directly from Genesis 10:21, which describes Shem in relation to “Japheth the elder.” On this reading, Scripture itself identifies Japheth as the oldest brother. The broader methodological point remains the same: biblical lists of siblings may be arranged according to status or wisdom rather than age, so genealogical chronology cannot automatically infer birth order from sequence of names.

The sugya finally arrives at a proof from the genealogy of Bezalel. Exodus identifies Bezalel as “son of Uri, son of Hur,” while I Chronicles presents Hur as the son of Caleb and Ephrat. The resulting line is Caleb → Hur → Uri → Bezalel. Unlike the earlier examples, the ages at the two ends of this genealogy can be established independently.

Bezalel was at least age 13 when he worked on the Tabernacle, because Exodus refers to those performing the work as “men,” which the sugya takes to imply legal adulthood (which halachically is at age 13). A baraita states that Moses made the Tabernacle in the 1st year after the Exodus and erected it in the 2nd year, the same year in which he sent the Spies. Bezalel was therefore at least 14 by the time of the mission of the Spies. Caleb, meanwhile, explicitly states in Joshua that he was 40 when Moses sent him from Kadesh Barnea to spy out the land.

The chronological span between Caleb’s birth and that point is therefore 40 years. Subtract Bezalel’s 14 years, leaving 26 years for the preceding 3 generations of reproduction. Subtract another 2 years for the 3 pregnancies leading to the births of Hur, Uri, and Bezalel, and 24 years remain. Distributed across Caleb, Hur, and Uri, the calculation yields 8 years for each father at the birth of his son. The sugya thus reaches its desired example of males in an earlier generation fathering children at age 8.

The discussion is thus built around a narrow legal question but proceeds through detailed biblical chronological reconstruction. Each proposed proof depends on several kinds of evidence: genealogical relationships, explicit ages, elapsed time between events, assumptions about pregnancy, and the ordering conventions of biblical genealogies. The first two arguments fail because the numerical result can be explained differently: the Ahithophel chronology permits unequal reproductive ages between males and females, while the Terah genealogy depends on assuming that brothers are listed by age. The Bezalel calculation supplies the stronger case because the chronological endpoints are independently fixed by Caleb’s stated age and Bezalel’s minimum age at the construction of the Tabernacle. The sugya thereby makes biblical chronology itself the evidentiary basis for defining the exceptional reproductive capacities attributed to the earliest generations.

Outline

Intro

The Passage

1. Beit Shammai / Beit Hillel - If a woman engages in intercourse with her minor son: Beit Shammai say that the intercourse can disqualify her from the priesthood; Beit Hillel say it does not

2. R” Hiyya b. Rabba b. Nahmani citing Rav Hisda; alternatively Rav Hisda citing Ze’eiri - All agree that intercourse by a boy age 9 counts as intercourse, and that intercourse by a boy under age 8 does not

3. They dispute only an 8-year-old: Beit Shammai derive the law from the capacities of earlier generations; Beit Hillel do not

Attempts to establish that males in earlier generations could father children at age 8

Attempted Proof #1 - from the genealogy of Ahithophel, Eliam, Bathsheba, and Solomon (c. 11th century BCE)

1. Ahithophel lived only 33 years; subtracting Solomon’s age and the time needed for 3 pregnancies appears to leave 24 years for 3 generations, implying fatherhood at age 8 - Il Samuel 11-17; Psalms 55:24

2. Baraita - Doeg lived only 34 years and Ahithophel only 33, based on the verse that “bloody and deceitful men do not live out half their days” - Psalms 55:24

3. Rejection of the Ahithophel calculation: Ahithophel and Eliam may each have fathered children at 9, while Bathsheba may have given birth at 6, since females can mature earlier Bathsheba’s earlier child supports the possibility - Il Samuel 11:27

Part 2

Attempted Proof #2 - from Terah’s family (c. 20th century BCE)

1. If Abram was 2 years older than Haran, and Sarah/Iscah was Haran’s daughter and 10 years younger than Abraham, Haran must have fathered Sarah at age 8 - Genesis 11:27, 29: 17:17

2. R” Yitzhak - Iscah is Sarah

3. Sarah was called Iscah because she perceived through the Holy Spirit - Genesis 11:29; 21:12

4. Alternatively, Sarah was called Iscah because everyone gazed upon her beauty

5. Rejection of the proof from Haran: Abraham may actually have been the youngest brother, with Scripture listing Terah’s sons according to wisdom rather than age - Genesis 11:27

6. Proof that biblical sibling lists need not follow birth order from Noah’s sons

7. If Shem were oldest the chronology would make him 102 when Arpachshad was born, whereas Scripture says he was 100; Shem was listed first because of wisdom, not age - Genesis 5:32: 7:6; 11:10

8. Rav Kahana citing Rav Zevid of Neharde’a - rather than deriving Shem’s younger status by chronological calculation, his tradition derives it directly from the description of Shem as “the brother of Japheth the elder,” showing Japheth was older - Genesis 10:21

Attempted Proof #3 - Proof from Caleb, Hur, Uri, and Bezalel (c. 13th century BCE): Bezalel was at least 13 when he made the Tabernacle, and 14 when the spies were sent Caleb was then 40; Subtracting Bezalel’s 14 years and 2 years for 3 pregnancies leaves 24 years for 3 generations, so each generation fathered a child at age 8 - Exodus 38:22; I Chronicles 2:19-20; Exodus 36:4; Joshua 14:7, 10

1. Baraita - Moses made the Tabernacle in the 1st year after the Exodus; in the 2nd year he erected it and sent the Spies

The Passage

Sanhedrin/69b#5 thru #19

Beit Shammai / Beit Hillel - If a woman engages in intercourse with her minor son: Beit Shammai say that the intercourse can disqualify her from the priesthood; Beit Hillel say it does not

תנו רבנן:

המסוללת בבנה קטן,

והערה בה –

בית שמאי אומרים: פסלה מן הכהונה,

ובית הלל מכשירין.

§ A baraita states:

If a woman was acting lewdly3 with her minor son

and he had partial sex (הערה) with her,

Beit Shammai say that he has thereby disqualified her from marrying into the priesthood.

And Beit Hillel deem her fit to marry into the priesthood, because they maintain that the sex of a minor is not regarded as sex.

R” Hiyya b. Rabba b. Nahmani citing Rav Hisda; alternatively Rav Hisda citing Ze’eiri - All agree that intercourse by a boy age 9 counts as intercourse, and that intercourse by a boy under age 8 does not

אמר רבי חייא בריה דרבה בר נחמני, אמר רב חסדא,

ואמרי לה: אמר רב חסדא, אמר זעירי:

הכל מודים

• בבן תשע שנים ויום אחד

  • שביאתו ביאה,

• פחות מבן שמנה

  • שאין ביאתו ביאה.

R’ Ḥiyya, son of Rabba bar Naḥmani, says that Rav Ḥisda says,

and some say that Rav Ḥisda says that Ze’eiri says:

All, i.e., both Beit Shammai and Beit Hillel, concede

• with regard to a boy 9 years and one day old

  • that his sex is regarded as sex and disqualifies a woman from marrying into the priesthood as well as results in her liability to receive the death penalty, even though he himself is not liable to receive it.

• And they also all concede concerning a boy less than 8 years old

  • that his sex is not regarded as sex vis-à-vis these halakhot.

They dispute only an 8-year-old: Beit Shammai derive the law from the capacities of earlier generations; Beit Hillel do not

לא נחלקו אלא בבן שמנה,

• דבית שמאי סברי:

  • גמרינן מדורות הראשונים,

• ובית הלל סברי:

  • לא גמרינן מדורות הראשונים.

They disagree only about a boy who is 8 years old,

• as Beit Shammai maintain that

  • we learn from earlier generations, when people were able to father children at that age, and we apply that reality to the present;

• and Beit Hillel maintain that

  • we do not learn from earlier generations.

Attempts to establish that males in earlier generations could father children at age 8

Attempted Proof #1 - from the genealogy of Ahithophel, Eliam, Bathsheba, and Solomon (c. 11th century BCE)

ודורות הראשונים מנלן דאוליד?

The Talmud asks: And from where do we derive that in earlier generations men fathered children at this age?

Ahithophel lived only 33 years; subtracting Solomon’s age and the time needed for 3 pregnancies appears to leave 24 years for 3 generations, implying fatherhood at age 8 - Il Samuel 11-17; Psalms 55:24

אילימא

1. מדכתיב:

   1. ״הלוא זאת בת שבע בת אליעם, אשת אוריה החתי״,

2. וכתיב:

   1. ״אליעם בן אחיתפל הגלני״,

3. וכתיב:

   1. ״וישלח ביד נתן הנביא, ויקרא את שמו ידידיה, בעבור (כי) ה׳ (אהבו)״.

4. וכתיב:

   1. ״ויהי לשנתים ימים, ויהיו גזזים לאבשלום״,

5. וכתיב:

   1. ״ואבשלום ברח, וילך גשורה, ויהי שם שלש שנים״.

6. וכתיב:

   1. ״וישב אבשלום בירושלים שנתים ימים, ופני המלך לא ראה״.

7. וכתיב:

   1. ״ויהי מקץ ארבעים שנה, ויאמר אבשלום אל המלך: אלכה נא, ואשלמה את נדרי, אשר נדרתי לה׳ בחברון״.

8. וכתיב:

   1. ״ואחיתפל ראה כי לא נעשתה עצתו, ויחבש את החמור, ויקם וילך אל ביתו ואל עירו, ויצו אל ביתו, ויחנק״.

If we say that we know this from the following calculation:

1. It is written:

   1. “Is this not Bathsheba, daughter of Eliam, wife of Uriah the Hittite?” (II Samuel 11:3).

2. And it is also written:

   1. “And Eliam, son of Ahithophel the Gilonite” (II Samuel 23:34), which teaches that Bathsheba was the granddaughter of Ahithophel.

3. And it is written with reference to the birth of Solomon:

   1. “And he sent by the hand of Nathan the prophet, and he called his name Jedidiah, for YHWH’s sake” (II Samuel 12:25).

4. And later it is written:

   1. “And it came to pass after 2 years, that Absalom had sheepshearers” (II Samuel 13:23), and at that time Amnon was killed (see II Samuel 13:23–29), this being at least 2 years after Solomon was born.

5. And afterward it is written:

   1. “So Absalom fled, and went to Geshur, and was there 3 years” (II Samuel 13:38), so that this was 5 years after Solomon was born.

6. And it is written:

   1. “So Absalom dwelt 2 years in Jerusalem, and did not see the king’s face” (II Samuel 14:28), bringing the tally to 7 years after Solomon was born.

7. And it is written:

   1. “And it came to pass after 40 years, that Absalom said to the king: I pray you, let me go and pay my vow, which I have vowed to YHWH, in Hebron” (II Samuel 15:7). This was the beginning of Absalom’s rebellion against David. Accordingly, at that time Solomon was at least 7 years old.

8. And at some point during the rebellion it is written:

   1. “And when Ahithophel saw that his counsel was not followed, he saddled his donkey, and arose, and went to his house, to his city, and put his household in order, and strangled himself and died” (II Samuel 17:23).

Baraita - Doeg lived only 34 years and Ahithophel only 33, based on the verse that “bloody and deceitful men do not live out half their days” - Psalms 55:24

וכתיב:

״אנשי דמים ומרמה לא יחצו ימיהם״.

ותניא:

• כל שנותיו של דואג

  • אינן אלא שלשים וארבע,

• ושל אחיתפל

  • אינן אלא שלשים ושלש.

And it is written:

“Bloody and deceitful men shall not live out half their days” (Psalms 55:24).

And it is taught in a baraita:

• All of Doeg’s years

  • were only 34

• and Ahithophel’s

  • were only 33.4

Neither reached the age of 35, half of the normal life span of 70 years.

כמה הויא להו?

תלתין ותלת.

Based on this, one can calculate:

How many years did Ahithophel live?

33.

דל שבע דהוה שלמה,

פש להו עשרים ושית.

Subtract 7 years, Solomon’s age at the time of Ahithophel’s death,

which leaves Ahithophel 26 years old at the time of Solomon’s birth.

דל תרתי שני לתלתא עבורי,

אשתכח דכל חד וחד בתמני אוליד.

Subtract two more years for 3 pregnancies,5

It turns out that 3 generations were born in 24 years, and that each and every parent begot a child at the age of 8.

Rejection of the Ahithophel calculation: Ahithophel and Eliam may each have fathered children at 9, while Bathsheba may have given birth at 6, since females can mature earlier Bathsheba’s earlier child supports the possibility - Il Samuel 11:27

ממאי?

דלמא תרוייהו בתשע אוליד,

ובת שבע אולידא בשית,

משום דאיתתא בריא.

The Talmud refutes this proof:

From where do you prove this?

Perhaps both Ahithophel and his son Eliam fathered children when they were each 9 years old,

and Bathsheba gave birth to Solomon when she was 6,

because a woman is stronger and can conceive at an earlier age.

תדע,

דהא הוי לה ולד מעיקרא.

Know that this is true that women conceive at an earlier age,

as Bathsheba had already given birth to a child from David before giving birth to Solomon (see II Samuel 11:27).

Therefore, no proof can be derived from here.

Rav - The Persian use of devir for “book” is associated with Debir’s earlier name, Kiriath Sefer - Judges 1:11

אמר רב:

כמאן קרו פרסאי לספרא ״דביר״?

מהכא:

״ושם דביר לפנים קרית ספר״.

§ Apropos the mention of the term devir, the Talmud discusses its etymology.

Rav said:

On what basis do the Persians call a book [sifra] by the term devir?

They derive it from here:

“Now the name of Debir [devir] beforehand was Kiriath Sefer” (Judges 1:11).

Since the name devir was changed to Kiriath Sefer, the Persians referred to a sifra, i.e., a book, as devir.

Rav Ashi - The Persian term for a menstruating woman, dashtana, is connected with the biblical phrase “the way of women” - Genesis 31:35

רב אשי אמר:

כמאן קרו פרסאי לנידה ״דשתנא״?

מהכא:

״כי דרך נשים לי״.

The Talmud examines the etymology of another term coined by the Persians.

Rav Ashi said:

On what basis do the Persians call a menstruating woman by the term dashtana?

It is from here, a verse in which Rachel claims to be a menstruating woman:

“For the manner of women is upon me [derekh nashim li]” (Genesis 31:35).

The word dashtana is a shortened form of the phrase derekh nashim.1

R’ Ḥiyya bar Abba citing R’ Yoḥanan - The “Book of Yashar” in Joshua is Genesis, the book of the Patriarchs, who are called yesharim - Joshua 10:13; Numbers 23:10

״וידם השמש

וירח עמד

עד יקם גוי איביו

הלא היא כתובה על ספר הישר״,

§ The Talmud cites a series of expositions with regard to what is called the book of Yashar. The verse states:

“And the sun stood still,

and the moon stayed,

until the nation had avenged themselves of their enemies.

Is this not written in the Book of Yashar”

(Joshua 10:13).

מאי ספר הישר?

אמר רבי חייא בר אבא, אמר רבי יוחנן:

זה ספר אברהם יצחק ויעקב,

שנקראו ישרים,

שנאמר:

״תמת נפשי מות ישרים״.

The Talmud asks: What is the “Book of Yashar”?

R’ Ḥiyya bar Abba says that R’ Yoḥanan says:

This is Genesis, which is the book of Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob,

who were called righteous [yesharim],

as it is stated:

“Let me die the death of the righteous [yesharim]” (Numbers 23:10).

Joshua’s stopping of the sun is alluded to in Genesis in Jacob’s blessing of Ephraim, whose descendants would become “a multitude of nations” - Genesis 48:19; Joshua 10:13

והיכא רמיזא?

״וזרעו יהיה מלא הגוים״,

The Talmud asks: And where is it alluded to in Genesis that the sun would stand still for Joshua?

The verse states in reference to Ephraim, who was Joshua’s ancestor:

“And his seed shall become a multitude of nations” (Genesis 48:19).

[אימתי יהיה מלא הגוים?]

בשעה שעמדה לו חמה ליהושע,

״ויעמד השמש בחצי השמים

ולא אץ לבוא כיום תמים״.

The Talmud asks: When will he become a multitude of nations?

He became a multitude of nations at the time when the sun stood in place for Joshua,

as it is written:

“And the sun stayed in the midst of heaven,

and hastened not to go down for an entire day” (Joshua 10:13).

R’ Yehoshua ben Levi - Joshua’s extended day lasted 24 hours in total: alternating 6 hours of movement and 6 hours of standing - Joshua 10:13

וכמה?

אמר רבי יהושע בן לוי:

עשרים וארבע [שעי],

• אזל שית וקם שית,

• אזל שית וקם שית,

כולה מלתא כיום תמים.

The Talmud inquires: And how much time elapsed before the sun finally set?

R’ Yehoshua ben Levi said that

it took 24 hours:

• It traveled across the sky for 6 hours and stood still for 6 hours,

• and again traveled 6 hours and stood still for 6 hours,

so that the entire matter lasted the duration of an entire day.

R’ Elazar - Joshua’s extended day lasted 36 hours in total: two 6-hour periods of movement and two 12-hour periods of standing - Joshua 10:13

רבי אלעזר אמר:

שלשים ושית,

• אזל שית וקם תריסר,

• אזל שית וקם תריסר,

עמידתו כיום תמים.

R’ Elazar said that

it lasted 36 hours (i.e. a-day-and-a-half):

• The sun traveled for 6 hours and stood for 12 hours,

• and again traveled 6 hours and stood for 12 hours,

so that the accumulated time of its suspension was that of an entire day.

R’ Shmuel bar Naḥmani - Joshua’s extended day lasted 48 hours in total, including a final 24-hour suspension

רבי שמואל בר נחמני אמר:

ארבעים ושמונה,

• אזל שית וקם תריסר,

• אזל שית וקם עשרים וארבעה,

R’ Shmuel bar Naḥmani said:

48 hours elapsed (i.e. two full days) before it set.

• It traveled 6 hours and stood for 12 hours,

• and then traveled 6 hours and stood for 24 hours,

Prooftext - Joshua 10:13

[שנאמר]:

״ולא אץ לבוא כיום תמים״,

מכלל ד

מעיקרא לאו כיום תמים [הוה].

[...]

as it is stated:

“And the sun stayed in the midst of heaven,”

and then: “And hastened not to go down for an entire day.”

By inference, it can be understood that

initially it was not suspended for an entire day.

Rather, at first it stood still for 12 hours, and was later suspended for an entire day.

[...]2

R’ Ḥiyya bar Abba citing R’ Yoḥanan - The “Book of Yashar” in David’s lament is Genesis, the book of the biblical Patriarchs - II Samuel 1:18; Numbers 23:10

כתיב

״ויאמר:

ללמד בני יהודה קשת

הנה כתובה על ספר הישר״,

The Talmud cites another exposition with regard to the book of Yashar.

It is written:

“And said:

To teach the sons of Judah the bow.

Behold, it is written in the Book of Yashar” (II Samuel 1:18).

מאי ״ספר הישר״?

אמר רבי חייא בר אבא אמר רבי יוחנן:

זה ספר אברהם יצחק ויעקב,

שנקראו ״ישרים״,

דכתיב בהו

״תמת נפשי מות ישרים

ותהי אחריתי כמוהו״.

The Talmud again asks: What is the Book of Yashar?

R’ Ḥiyya bar Abba says that R’ Yoḥanan says:

This is the book of Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob,

who were called righteous [yesharim],

as it is written with regard to them:

“Let me die the death of the righteous [yesharim]

and let my end be like his” (Numbers 23:10).

Genesis alludes to Judah’s skill with the bow through Jacob’s blessing, “your hand shall be on the nape of your enemies” - Genesis 49:8

והיכא רמיזא?

״יהודה אתה יודוך אחיך

ידך בערף איביך״,

The Talmud further analyzes the verse in Samuel: And where is it alluded to in Genesis that Judah must be taught to use the bow?

The verse states:

“Judah, your brothers shall praise you;

your hand shall be on the nape of your enemies” (Genesis 49:8).

ואיזו היא מלחמה שצריכה יד כנגד עורף?

הוי אומר:

זו קשת.

The Talmud explains:

What is the form of warfare that requires one’s hand to be held opposite the nape?

You must say that

this is referring to the use of a bow.

This is the referent of the verse in Samuel.

R’ Elazar - The “Book of Yashar” is Deuteronomy, called so because it commands doing what is “right and good” - Deuteronomy 6:18

רבי אלעזר אומר:

זה ספר משנה תורה,

ואמאי קרו ליה ״ספר הישר״?

דכתיב:

״ועשית הישר והטוב בעיני ה׳״.

The Talmud cites a different interpretation:

R’ Elazar says that

the Book of Yashar is the book of Deuteronomy.

And why did they call it the book of Yashar?

As it is written:

“And you shall do that which is right [yashar] and good in the sight of YHWH” (Deuteronomy 6:18).

Judah’s use of the bow is alluded to in “his hands shall contend for him,” since drawing a bow requires both hands - Deuteronomy 33:7

והיכא רמיזא?

״ידיו רב לו״,

ואיזו היא מלחמה שצריכה שתי ידים?

הוי אומר:

זו קשת.

And where is it alluded to in Deuteronomy that Judah must be taught to use the bow?

The verse states: “And this for Judah, and he said: Hear, YHWH, the voice of Judah, and bring him in unto his people;

his hands shall contend for him” (Deuteronomy 33:7).

What is the form of warfare that requires the use of two hands?

You must say that this is referring to the use of a bow.

This is the referent of the verse in Samuel.

R’ Shmuel bar Naḥmani - The “Book of Yashar” is Judges, whose period is described as one in which everyone did what was “right” in his own eyes - Judges 17:6

רבי שמואל בר נחמני אמר:

זה ספר שופטים,

ואמאי קרו ליה ״ספר הישר״?

דכתיב:

״בימים ההם אין מלך בישראל איש הישר בעיניו יעשה״,

The Talmud provides yet another explanation: R’ Shmuel bar Naḥmani says that the book of Yashar is the book of Judges.

And why did they call it the book of Yashar?

As it is written:

“In those days there was no king in Israel;

every man did that which was right [yashar] in his own eyes” (Judges 17:6).

The command to teach later generations warfare refers to archery; its connection to Judah follows from Judah being chosen to lead the war against the Canaanites - Judges 3:2; Judges 1:1–2

והיכא רמיזא?

״למען דעת דרות בני ישראל ללמדם מלחמה״,

ואיזו היא מלחמה שצריכה לימוד?

הוי אומר:

זו קשת.

And where is it alluded to in Judges that Judah must be taught to use the bow?

The verse states:

“Only that the generations of the children of Israel might know,

to teach them war” (Judges 3:2).

What is the form of warfare that requires teaching?3

You must say that this is referring to the use of a bow.

This is the referent of the verse in Samuel.

ומנלן דביהודה כתיב?

דכתיב:

״מי יעלה לנו בתחלה אל הכנעני להלחם בו,

ויאמר ה׳ יהודה יעלה״.

The Talmud asks: And from where do we derive that Judges 3:2 is written in reference to Judah?

We derive it as it is written:

“The children of Israel asked YHWH, saying: Who shall go up for us first against the Canaanites,

to fight against them?

And YHWH said:

Judah shall go up” (Judges 1:1–2).

R’ Yoḥanan - The portion placed before Saul was the thigh together with the tail, which rests against it - I Samuel 9:24

״וירם הטבח את השוק

והעליה

וישם לפני שאול״,

מאי ״והעליה״?

רבי יוחנן אומר:

שוק ואליה.

§ The Talmud cites another dispute between the same amora’im.

The verse states:

“And the cook took up the thigh,

and that which was upon it [ve-he’aleha],

and set it before Saul” (I Samuel 9:24).

To what does the term “and that which was upon it” refer?

R’ Yoḥanan says:

It refers to the thigh and the tail4

מאי ״והעליה״?

דמסמכא שוק לאליה.

The Talmud asks: What is the reason that the tail is referred to as: “And that which was upon it”?

The reason is that the thigh supports the tail,

as it rests upon it.

R’ Elazar - The portion was the thigh together with the breast, which is placed on the thigh for sacrificial waving

ורבי אלעזר אומר:

שוק וחזה,

And R’ Elazar says:

The verse refers to the thigh and the breast.

מאי ״והעליה״?

דמחית לה לחזה עילויה דשוק כי בעי אנופי,

ומנפי ליה.

What is the reason that the breast is referred to as: “And that which was upon it”?

The reason is that one places the breast upon the thigh when it requires sacrificial waving,

and waves it.

R’ Shmuel bar Naḥmani - The portion was the thigh together with the shofi, the upper part of the leg situated above the thigh

ורבי שמואל בר נחמני אמר:

שוק ושופי,

And R’ Shmuel bar Naḥmani says:

The verse refers to the thigh and the cap5

i.e., the very top part of the leg.

מאי ״והעליה״?

שופי עילויה דשוק קאי.

What is the reason that the cap is referred to as: “And that which was upon it”?

It is because it is referring to the cap that stands above the thigh.

Appendix - Comparative Biblical and Scientific Context

The biblical narrative says that the cows went directly toward Beit Shemesh while “lowing as they went.” The Talmud interprets va-yisharna (”they went straight”) through its resemblance to shira, “song,” and develops a series of opinions about which biblical hymn the cows sang. Modern interpreters take the verb in its ordinary sense: the cows proceeded straight along the road. The biblical author’s point is that the animals, despite being nursing cows separated from their calves, inexplicably traveled directly toward Israel, confirming the Philistines’ test that Israel’s God was responsible for their affliction.

The Talmud identifies it variously as Genesis, Deuteronomy, or Judges, using occurrences of the root y-sh-r, “upright/right,” within each book and then finding additional verses that can allude to Joshua or Judah. Modern biblical scholars almost universally understand the Book or Scroll of Yashar as a separate, now-lost Israelite work. Its other explicit appearance is in II Samuel 1:18, precisely the second passage discussed by the Talmud. Since both contexts contain poetry, scholars commonly reconstruct it as some kind of collection of heroic poems, songs, or national traditions.

The Talmud accepts the description of an extraordinarily prolonged day in Joshua and asks exactly how long the phenomenon lasted: 24, 36, or 48 hours, depending on how the clauses describing the sun’s movement and suspension are parsed. Modern scholarship focuses more heavily on the poetic character of Joshua 10:12-13 and its apparent connection with the Book of Yashar. Many scholars regard at least part of the passage as an older poetic fragment incorporated into the prose account, although interpretations of what the poem originally described vary considerably. Some understand it as a literal miracle within the narrative world; others have proposed poetic hyperbole or various natural phenomena.

R’ Yohanan states that a female animal younger than 3 years becomes sterile through sexual penetration, whereas an animal aged 3 or older does not, and the accompanying baraita assumes that a cow younger than 3 cannot yet have given birth. Modern veterinary science does not support either proposition as a general biological rule. Cattle normally reach puberty around 10-12 months; modern heifers are commonly bred at roughly 13-15 months and give birth at about 22-24 months. A cow can therefore quite normally have produced a calf well before its third birthday.

Likewise, there is no recognized physiological threshold at age 3 at which human sexual penetration changes from necessarily causing sterility to not causing it. Traumatic penetration can certainly injure the vagina or reproductive tract, and severe trauma or subsequent infection can impair fertility. Veterinary literature distinguishes minor injuries, which commonly heal, from serious tears and infections that may have reproductive consequences. But neither inevitable sterility nor a 3-year cutoff corresponds to modern veterinary knowledge.

Question from Araunah’s animals being accepted by David for sacrifice - II Samuel 24:22

תא שמע:

״ויאמר ארונה אל דוד:

יקח ויעל אדני המלך (את) הטוב בעינו

(ואת) [ראה] הבקר לעלה

והמרגים וכלי הבקר לעצים״

Come and hear another objection from a verse:

“And Araunah said to David:

Let my lord the king take and offer up what seems good unto him;

behold the cattle for the burnt-offering,

and the threshing instruments1 and the accoutrements of the cattle for the wood” (II Samuel 24:22).

Apparently, David was willing to accept oxen as offerings from a non-Jew.

Rav Naḥman - Araunah’s animals could be accepted because Araunah was a ger toshav, who observed the Noahide prohibition against bestiality

אמר רב נחמן:

ארונה גר תושב היה.

Rav Naḥman says:

Araunah was a ger toshav (=non-Jew who resides in Eretz Yisrael and observes the 7 Noahide mitzvot)

The 7 Noahide mitzvot include the prohibition against engaging in bestiality, and therefore Araunah was not suspected of this practice.

Ulla - The biblical morigim were serrated threshing boards - II Samuel 24:22

מאי מורגים?

אמר עולא:

מטה של טורביל.

Tangentially, the Talmud asks: What is the meaning of the term “morigim,” mentioned in this verse?

Ulla said:

It is a turbil2 bed.

מאי מטה של טורביל?

עיזא דקורקסא דדיישן.

The Talmud asks: What is a turbil bed?

It is a serrated board3 used for threshing.4

Rav Yosef - The verse in Isaiah validates the fact that morag means a toothed threshing implement - Isaiah 41:15

אמר רב יוסף:

מאי קרא?

Rav Yosef said:

What is the verse

from which the meaning of morigim is derived?

״הנה שמתיך למורג חרוץ חדש

בעל פיפיות

תדוש הרים

ותדק

וגבעות כמץ תשים״.

It is derived from the verse:

“Behold, I have made you a new threshing board [morag]

having sharp teeth (פיפיות);

you shall thresh the mountains,

and pulverize [them],

and shall make the hills as chaff” (Isaiah 41:15).

Question from the sacrifice of the Philistines’ cows after the Ark’s return - I Samuel 6:14

מיתיבי:

״ואת הפרות העלו עלה לה׳״

The Talmud raises an objection to the opinion of R’ Eliezer. After the Philistines returned the Ark of the Covenant to the Israelites upon a cart drawn by cattle, the verse states:

“And they sacrificed the cattle as a burnt-offering unto YHWH” (I Samuel 6:14).

Evidently, the Jews did not hesitate to sacrifice the Philistines’ animals.

That was an exceptional temporary ruling, not ordinary law

הוראת שעה היתה.

The Talmud explains:

There, it was a provisional edict issued in extraordinary circumstances,

and their actions are not representative of the general halakha.

הכי נמי מסתברא,

דאי לא תימא הכי,

עולה נקבה מי איכא?

The Talmud adds: This also stands to reason,

as, if you do not say so, one can raise a further difficulty with this episode:

Is there a female burnt-offering?

Only males may be sacrificed as burnt-offerings. Since the Jews sacrificed the cows as burnt-offerings, it is clear that they were acting unconventionally due to extenuating circumstances.

Rav Adda bar Ahava - A female burnt-offering is permitted on a private altar, as Samuel sacrificed a nursing lamb - I Samuel 7:9

ומאי קושיא?

דלמא בבמת יחיד,

וכדרב אדא בר אהבה,

דאמר רב אדא בר אהבה:

מנין לעולה נקבה שהיא כשרה בבמת יחיד?

שנאמר:

״ויקח שמואל טלה חלב אחד

ויעלהו עולה״.

The Talmud rejects this proof: And what is the difficulty?

In other words, the additional problem with the incident, that the animals were female, which is cited as proof that there were extenuating circumstances, is not in fact difficult at all.

The Talmud elaborates: Perhaps the cows were offered upon a private altar,

and this is in accordance with the opinion of Rav Adda bar Ahava,

as Rav Adda bar Ahava says:

From where is it derived that a female burnt-offering is fit to be sacrificed upon a private altar?

As it is stated:

“And Samuel took a milking lamb,

and sacrificed it [va-ya’alehu] for a burnt-offering unto YHWH” (I Samuel 7:9).

The phrase “milking lamb” indicates that it was a female, and yet Samuel sacrificed it upon a private altar.

Rav Naḥman bar Yitzḥak - Although the word describing Samuel’s sacrifice is read as grammatical masculine, it is written in a grammatical feminine form (supporting the permissibility of a female burnt-offering on a private altar) - I Samuel 7:9

״ויעלהו״ —

זכר משמע!

The Talmud raises a difficulty:

But the word va-ya’alehu is masculine,

which means that the lamb was a male.

אמר רב נחמן בר יצחק:

״ויעלה״ כתיב.

Rav Naḥman bar Yitzḥak says:

Although the word is read in the masculine, it is written in the feminine form, va-ya’alah,

which teaches that even a female lamb may be sacrificed on a private altar.

R’ Yoḥanan - A female animal under 3 years old becomes barren when sexually penetrated, while one aged 3 or older does not (therefore non-Jews refrain from bestiality with younger animals)

רבי יוחנן אמר:

גבול יש לה:

• פחותה מבת שלש שנים —

  • נעקרת,

• בת שלש שנים —

  • אינה נעקרת.

§ After concluding its discussion of the opinion of R’ Eliezer, the Talmud cites another resolution of the contradiction between the Mishnah and the baraita.

R’ Yoḥanan says:

There is a clear demarcation in the case of an animal with whom a man engaged in bestiality:

• If she is less than 3 years old,

  • she becomes barren as a result of penetration,

• but if she is already 3 years old,

  • she does not become barren.

Although non-Jews are generally suspected of engaging in bestiality, the baraita rules that an animal that is less than 3 years old may be used as an offering because a non-Jew will refrain from engaging in bestiality with an animal that will become infertile as a result of his actions.

איתיביה כל הני תיובתא,

שני להו:

פחותה מבת שלש שנים.

תא שמע:

״ואת הפרות העלו עלה לה׳״ —

בפחותה מבת שלש שנים.

They raised all of those refutations from the aforementioned verses which indicate that animals purchased from non-Jews may be brought as offerings,

and he answered them by claiming that the animals being offered were less than 3 years old.

The Talmud reexamines one of the objections.

Come and hear,

as the verse states: “And they sacrificed the cattle as a burnt-offering unto YHWH” (I Samuel 6:14).

R’ Yoḥanan explained that although in that incident the cattle had been owned by Philistines, they were less than 3 years old, and it was therefore presumed that the Philistines had not engaged in bestiality with them.

Rav Huna b. Natan - Rejects R’ Yoḥanan’s explanation: the Philistine cows had calves, yet cows under 3 years old cannot have given birth - I Samuel 6:10

מתקיף לה רב הונא בריה דרב נתן:

אם כן,

היינו ״ואת בניהם כלו בבית״ —

פחותה מבת שלש שנים?

The Talmud cites a refutation of R’ Yoḥanan’s answer:

Rav Huna, son of R’ Natan, objects to this:

If so,

then this is also true with regard to the verse: “And they took two nursing cows and tied them to the cart and shut up their calves at home” (I Samuel 6:10).

According to R’ Yoḥanan, the verse is necessarily referring to cows that are less than 3 years old.

Baraita - A cow or donkey purchased before age 3 is certainly assumed not to have previously given birth; after age 3, that is uncertain

ופחותה מבת שלש שנים מי קא ילדה?

והתניא:

• פרה וחמור מבת שלש —

  • ודאי לכהן,

• מכאן ואילך —

  • ספק.

And can a cow that is less than 3 years old give birth?

But isn’t it taught in a baraita:

• With regard to a cow or a donkey purchased from a non-Jew when they were less than 3 years old,

  • the first of their offspring born after the purchase is certainly reserved for the priest, who is entitled to the firstborn of a cow or donkey owned by a Jew.

• From this point forward, i.e., if they were older than 3 years at the time of the sale,

  • it is uncertain whether or not the offspring is the firstborn.

This indicates that an animal does not bear offspring within the first 3 years of its life. Since the cows in the verse had already given birth, they could not have been less than 3 years old, as R’ Yoḥanan claimed.

אלא מחוורתא כדשנין מעיקרא.

The Talmud concludes:

Rather, it is clear as we initially answered,

i.e., R’ Yoḥanan’s suggestion is rejected, and the actions in that verse were due to a provisional edict.

R’ Yoḥanan citing R’ Meir - “yisharna” means that the Philistine cows sang a song - I Samuel 6:12

״וישרנה הפרות בדרך

על דרך בית שמש וגו׳״,

§ The Talmud further analyzes the episode involving the cows sent by the Philistines. The verse states:

“And the cattle took the straight [va-yisharna] way,

on the way to Beit Shemesh;

they went along the highway, lowing as they went” (I Samuel 6:12).

מאי ״וישרנה״?

אמר רבי יוחנן, משום רבי מאיר:

שאמרו שירה.

The Talmud asks: What is the meaning of the word va-yisharna?

R’ Yoḥanan says in the name of R’ Meir:

It means that they recited a song [shira].

Rav Zutra bar Toviyya citing Rav - “yisharna” means that the cows turned their faces toward the Ark and sang - I Samuel 6:12

ורב זוטרא בר טוביה, אמר רב:

שישרו פניהם כנגד ארון

ואמרו שירה.

And Rav Zutra bar Toviyya says that Rav says:

It means that they straightened [yishru] their faces so that they were opposite the Ark

and recited a song.

R’ Yoḥanan citing R’ Meir - The cows sang the Song at the Sea - Exodus 15:1

ומאי שירה אמרו?

אמר רבי יוחנן, משום רבי מאיר:

״אז ישיר משה ובני ישראל״,

The Talmud asks: And what song did they recite?

R’ Yoḥanan says in the name of R’ Meir:

They recited the song that follows the verse: “Then sang Moses and the children of Israel this song unto YHWH” (Exodus 15:1).

R’ Yoḥanan - The cows sang Isaiah’s hymn beginning “Give thanks to YHWH, proclaim His name” - Isaiah 12:4

ורבי יוחנן דידיה אמר:

״ואמרתם ביום ההוא:

הודו לה׳

קראו בשמו וגו׳״.

And R’ Yoḥanan himself says that

it was: “And on that day shall you say:

Give thanks unto YHWH,

proclaim His name,

declare His doings among the peoples, make mention that His name is exalted” (Isaiah 12:4).

R’ Shimon ben Lakish - The cows sang Psalm 98

ורבי שמעון בן לקיש אמר:

מזמורא יתמא,

And R’ Shimon ben Lakish says that

it was an orphaned psalm,

i.e., a psalm whose author and the event to which it makes reference are not specified.

״מזמור

שירו לה׳ שיר חדש

כי נפלאות עשה

הושיעה לו ימינו, וזרוע קדשו״.

The psalm begins with:

“A Psalm.

O sing unto YHWH a new song,

for He has done marvelous things;

His right hand, and His holy arm, have wrought salvation for Him” (Psalms 98:1).

R’ Elazar - The cows sang Psalm 99

רבי אלעזר אמר:

״ה׳ מלך, ירגזו עמים״.

R’ Elazar says that

it was the psalm beginning with: “YHWH reigns; let the peoples tremble” (Psalms 99:1).

R’ Shmuel bar Naḥmani - The cows sang Psalm 93

רבי שמואל בר נחמני אמר:

״ה׳ מלך, גאות לבש״.

R’ Shmuel bar Naḥmani says that

it was the Psalm beginning: “YHWH reigns; He is clothed in majesty” (Psalms 93:1).

R’ Yitzḥak Nappaḥa - The cows sang a non-biblical hymn praising the Ark as acacia wood adorned with gold and containing the Torah

רבי יצחק נפחא אמר:

1. ״רוני רוני השיטה,

2. התנופפי ברוב הדרך,

3. המחושקת בריקמי זהב,

4. המהוללה בדביר ארמון,

5. ומפוארה בעדי עדיים״.

R’ Yitzḥak Nappaḥa says:5

1. Sing,6 sing, acacia (שיטה);

2. Ascend (התנופפי) in all your glory;

3. Overlaid (מחושקת) with golden embroidery,

4. exalted (מהוללה) by the book [devir] of the palace,

5. and magnificent (מפוארה) with jewels.

Rav Ashi’s Alternative version of R’ Yitzḥak’s statement - hymn was sung by Israel when the Ark set out in the wilderness - Numbers 10:35

רב אשי מתני לה להא דרבי יצחק, אהא:

״ויהי בנסע הארן

ויאמר משה:

קומה ה׳״,

Rav Ashi teaches this statement of R’ Yitzḥak in relation to this verse:

“And it came to pass, when the Ark set forward (ויהי בנסע הארן)

that Moses said:

Rise up, O YHWH,

and let Your enemies be scattered” (Numbers 10:35).7

ישראל מאי אמרו?

אמר רבי יצחק:

״רוני רוני השיטה״ וכו׳.

The Talmud asks: What did the Jewish people recite at this juncture?

R’ Yitzḥak says that they recited:

Sing, sing, acacia,

etc.

Part 1

This sugya moves through several distinct but connected discussions, beginning with a halakhic dispute about animals acquired from non-Jews and eventually developing into a long series of biblical interpretations concerning the Ark, the miraculous stopping of the sun for Joshua (in Joshua 10:12-14), and the identity of the “Book of Yashar.” The discussion is held together by close readings of biblical narratives, especially passages in Samuel and Joshua, and by repeated attempts to reconcile those narratives with rabbinic legal principles.

The opening section continues a dispute concerning whether animals obtained from non-Jews may be used as sacrifices. R’ Eliezer disqualifies such animals because of the possibility that they had been used for bestiality. This produces an obvious tension with biblical passages in which animals associated with non-Jews appear to be accepted as sacrifices. The Talmud accordingly tests R’ Eliezer’s position against a series of cases.

The first challenge comes from Isaiah’s prophecy that “the flocks of Kedar” and “the rams of Nebaioth” will one day ascend God’s altar. R’ Eliezer answers that in the messianic future the nations will all convert to Judaism. Rav Yosef supports this from Zephaniah’s prediction that God will give the peoples a “pure language” so that they may serve Him together. Abaye suggests that the verse might refer only to abandonment of idolatry, but Rav Yosef understands “to serve Him with one consent” as implying broader acceptance of the biblical commandments.

The Talmud then turns from prophecy to biblical precedent. Moses demanded sacrificial animals from Pharaoh; Moses’ father-in-law Yitro brought sacrifices; Saul claimed that Israel had preserved Amalekite livestock in order to sacrifice it; Araunah offered David cattle for burnt-offerings; and the cows that carried the Ark back from Philistine territory were themselves offered to God. Each case seems to show that animals belonging to non-Jews could be used for sacrifice.

The answers are case-specific. Pharaoh’s animals belonged to the period before the giving of the Torah. Yitro’s offerings can similarly be placed before Sinai; according to the opinion that Yitro arrived afterward, the Talmud proposes that he bought the animals from Jews. Saul’s statement is reinterpreted monetarily: the Amalekite animals themselves were to be sold, with their value then used to purchase sacrificial animals. Araunah is classified by Rav Nahman as a ger toshav, and therefore as someone who observed the Noahide prohibition against bestiality.

Part 2

The episode of the Philistine cows is more difficult. After the Ark was returned to Israel, the cows that had pulled its cart were offered as burnt-offerings. The Talmud initially treats this as a hora’at sha’ah, an exceptional temporary ruling that cannot establish ordinary sacrificial law.1 The fact that the animals were female appears to reinforce this conclusion, since burnt-offerings are ordinarily male. That argument is qualified by Rav Adda bar Ahava’s rule that a female burnt-offering may be brought on a private altar (במה - bamah), supported by the description of Samuel’s sacrificial lamb in I Samuel 7.

R’ Yohanan offers a different way of preserving the general rule concerning animals owned by non-Jews: According to him, female animals under 3 years old become infertile if sexually penetrated, and their owners therefore refrain from bestiality with them. Such animals can consequently be presumed unaffected by the concern underlying R’ Eliezer’s ruling. R’ Yohanan applies this distinction to the earlier biblical cases.

The Philistine cows, however, defeat this explanation. I Samuel explicitly describes them as nursing cows whose calves were confined at home. A baraita assumes that cattle younger than 3 have not yet given birth. The cows therefore had to be at least 3 years old, precisely the age at which R’ Yohanan’s presumption no longer works. The Talmud accordingly returns to its original conclusion: their sacrifice was an exceptional ruling.

From this point the sugya shifts from sacrificial law into aggadic interpretation of the same biblical episode. The verse states that the cows “went straight” toward Beit Shemesh. R’ Yohanan, citing R’ Meir, reads the verb yisharna through the word shira, “song”: the cows sang as they traveled. Rav Zutra bar Toviyya, citing Rav, adds that they turned their faces toward the Ark and sang.

The Talmud then records a series of opinions identifying their song. R’ Meir identifies it with the Song at the Sea in Exodus 15. R’ Yohanan proposes Isaiah 12, beginning “Give thanks to YHWH, proclaim His name.” R’ Shimon ben Lakish assigns them Psalm 98, R’ Elazar Psalm 99, and R’ Shmuel bar Nahmani Psalm 93. These texts share themes of divine kingship, miraculous salvation, praise, and God’s manifestation before the nations.

R’ Yitzhak Nappaha gives a markedly different answer. The cows sang an otherwise non-biblical hymn addressed to the Ark itself: “Sing, sing, acacia,” followed by praise of its acacia wood, gold covering, and the Torah contained within it. Rav Ashi preserves another version in which this hymn was not sung by the Philistine cows at all, but by Israel whenever the Ark set out during the wilderness journey. The same poem is thus attached in different traditions to two biblical scenes involving the movement of the Ark.

Part 3

The wording of this poem then generates two brief linguistic discussions. The term devir, used in the hymn for a “book,” is connected by Rav with the biblical city Debir, formerly called Kiriath Sefer. Rav presents this as an explanation for a Persian word for book. Rav Ashi similarly connects the Persian term for a menstruating woman (dashtana) with Rachel’s statement in Genesis, “the way of women is upon me.” These comments reflect the Talmud’s broader practice of explaining even foreign vocabulary by means of biblical Hebrew.

The next major unit begins with Joshua 10 and the miraculous suspension of the sun during Joshua’s battle against the Amorite coalition. The biblical verse says that this event is written in the “Book of Yashar.” R’ Hiyya bar Abba, citing R’ Yohanan, identifies this book with Genesis, understood as the book of the biblical Patriarchs, who are called yesharim, “upright ones,” in Balaam’s words, “Let me die the death of the upright.”

This identification requires the Talmud to locate Joshua’s miracle somewhere in Genesis. It finds the allusion in Jacob’s blessing of Ephraim: “his seed shall become a multitude of nations.” Since Joshua descended from Ephraim, the phrase is interpreted as anticipating the moment when Joshua’s fame would fill the nations because the sun stood still for him.

The sugya then attempts to quantify the miracle. R’ Yehoshua ben Levi calculates a total period of 24 hours, divided into alternating 6-hour periods of solar movement and suspension. R’ Elazar gives a total of 36 hours, with two 12-hour suspensions. R’ Shmuel bar Nahmani gives 48 hours, including a final suspension lasting an entire 24-hour day. These calculations derive from an extremely literal reading of Joshua’s description that the sun “stood still” and “did not hasten to go down for an entire day.” The miraculous event is therefore converted into a chronological problem whose competing solutions depend on how the clauses of the verse are distributed.

The “Book of Yashar” problem then reappears in connection with David’s lament for Saul and Jonathan. II Samuel 1 says that David ordered the people to teach the sons of Judah “the bow,” adding that the matter was written in the Book of Yashar. Once again, the Talmud asks what biblical book this title designates and where that book contains an allusion to Judah’s archery.

R’ Yohanan again identifies the Book of Yashar with Genesis. The relevant allusion is Jacob’s blessing of Judah: “your hand shall be on the nape of your enemies.” The physical position of the hand opposite the back of the neck is understood as a description of drawing a bow.

R’ Elazar instead identifies the Book of Yashar with Deuteronomy, because Deuteronomy commands Israel to do “what is right and good” in God’s eyes. Judah’s archery is then found in Moses’ blessing, “his hands shall contend for him.” Since archery requires both hands, the verse can be read as an allusion to the bow.

R’ Shmuel bar Nahmani identifies the Book of Yashar with Judges, based on the repeated description of that period as one in which each person did “what was right in his own eyes.” Judges also states that later generations of Israelites were left in contact with hostile peoples “to teach them war.” The Talmud identifies the warfare requiring special instruction as archery. Judah is connected to this passage through the opening of Judges, where Judah is chosen to lead Israel’s campaign against the Canaanites.

The three interpretations therefore use the same basic method. First, each rabbi identifies a canonical biblical book that can plausibly be called “Yashar“ on lexical grounds. Second, he searches that book for a verse that can be read as anticipating the event mentioned in Samuel. The obscure external citation “Book of Yashar” is thereby absorbed into the biblical canon itself: Genesis, Deuteronomy, or Judges can each function as the otherwise unidentified work.

The sugya ends with another close reading of Samuel, this time concerning the meal served to Saul before his public emergence as king. The cook places before him “the thigh and that which was upon it.” R’ Yohanan identifies the accompanying portion as the tail, which rests against the thigh. R’ Elazar identifies it as the breast, which is placed on the thigh during the sacrificial waving procedure. R’ Shmuel bar Nahmani identifies it as the shofi, the upper section of the leg located physically above the thigh.

Across these sections, the sugya repeatedly moves from legal problems into biblical philology and aggadah. A rule about the sacrificial eligibility of animals obtained from non-Jews produces a catalogue of biblical counterexamples. One of those counterexamples, the return of the Ark by the Philistines, becomes the basis for traditions about singing cows and the Ark’s hymn. A linguistic detail in that hymn leads to Persian vocabulary, while another biblical citation opens a long discussion of Joshua’s stopped sun and the identity of the Book of Yashar. The resulting sugya is organized less around a single substantive topic than around a sequence of biblical verses, each becoming the starting point for legal reconciliation, lexical analysis, chronological calculation, or midrashic reconstruction.

Outline

Intro

The Passage

1. R’ Ami / R’ Yitzḥak Nappaḥa - R’ Eliezer disqualifies all animals obtained from non-Jews for sacrifice (because of concern that they may have been used for bestiality)

2. R’ Eliezer’s colleagues challenge R’ Eliezer: Scripture states that in the messianic future, the flocks of Kedar and rams of Nebaioth will be accepted on God’s altar - Isaiah 60:7

3. R’ Eliezer’s response - In the messianic future, the non-Jews will convert to Judaism (so their animals will no longer be subject to this suspicion)

4. Rav Yosef - The conversion of the nations in the messianic future is indicated by the prophecy that God will give the peoples a pure language so that they all call on His name - Zephaniah 3:9

   1. Abaye questions - The verse might mean only that the nations will abandon idolatry

   2. Rav Yosef’s response - “To serve Him with one consent” implies fuller acceptance of God’s commandments, not merely abandonment of idolatry

5. Question from Moses’ request that Pharaoh supply sacrifices - Exodus 10:25

   1. This does not disprove R’ Eliezer, because this occurred before the giving of the Torah

6. Question from Yitro’s sacrifices - Exodus 18:12

   1. This likewise poses no difficulty if his arrival preceded Sinai

   2. According to the view that he came afterward, he must have purchased the animals from Jews

7. Question from Saul’s claim that the best Amalekite livestock was spared for sacrifice - I Samuel 15:15

   1. It means that their monetary value would be used to purchase sacrificial animals

Part 2

1. Question from Araunah’s animals being accepted by David for sacrifice - II Samuel 24:22

2. Rav Naḥman - Araunah’s animals could be accepted because Araunah was a ger toshav, who observed the Noahide prohibition against bestiality

3. Ulla - The biblical morigim were serrated threshing boards - II Samuel 24:22

4. Rav Yosef - The verse in Isaiah validates the fact that morag means a toothed threshing implement - Isaiah 41:15

5. Question from the sacrifice of the Philistines’ cows after the Ark’s return - I Samuel 6:14

   1. That was an exceptional temporary ruling, not ordinary law

6. Rav Adda bar Ahava - A female burnt-offering is permitted on a private altar, as Samuel sacrificed a nursing lamb - I Samuel 7:9

7. Rav Naḥman bar Yitzḥak - Although the word describing Samuel’s sacrifice is read as grammatical masculine, it is written in a grammatical feminine form (supporting the permissibility of a female burnt-offering on a private altar) - I Samuel 7:9

8. R’ Yoḥanan - A female animal under 3 years old becomes barren when sexually penetrated, while one aged 3 or older does not (therefore non-Jews refrain from bestiality with younger animals)

9. Rav Huna b. Natan - Rejects R’ Yoḥanan’s explanation: the Philistine cows had calves, yet cows under 3 years old cannot have given birth - I Samuel 6:10

10. Baraita - A cow or donkey purchased before age 3 is certainly assumed not to have previously given birth; after age 3, that is uncertain

11. R’ Yoḥanan citing R’ Meir - “yisharna” means that the Philistine cows sang a song - I Samuel 6:12

12. Rav Zutra bar Toviyya citing Rav - “yisharna” means that the cows turned their faces toward the Ark and sang - I Samuel 6:12

13. R’ Yoḥanan citing R’ Meir - The cows sang the Song at the Sea - Exodus 15:1

14. R’ Yoḥanan - The cows sang Isaiah’s hymn beginning “Give thanks to YHWH, proclaim His name” - Isaiah 12:4

15. R’ Shimon ben Lakish - The cows sang Psalm 98

16. R’ Elazar - The cows sang Psalm 99

17. R’ Shmuel bar Naḥmani - The cows sang Psalm 93

18. R’ Yitzḥak Nappaḥa - The cows sang a non-biblical hymn praising the Ark as acacia wood adorned with gold and containing the Torah

19. Rav Ashi’s Alternative version of R’ Yitzḥak’s statement - hymn was sung by Israel when the Ark set out in the wilderness - Numbers 10:35

Part 3

1. Rav - The Persian use of devir for “book” is associated with Debir’s earlier name, Kiriath Sefer - Judges 1:11

2. Rav Ashi - The Persian term for a menstruating woman, dashtana, is connected with the biblical phrase “the way of women” - Genesis 31:35

3. R’ Ḥiyya bar Abba citing R’ Yoḥanan - The “Book of Yashar” in Joshua is Genesis, the book of the Patriarchs, who are called yesharim - Joshua 10:13; Numbers 23:10

   1. Joshua’s stopping of the sun is alluded to in Jacob’s blessing of Ephraim, whose descendants would become “a multitude of nations” - Genesis 48:19; Joshua 10:13

4. R’ Yehoshua ben Levi - Joshua’s extended day lasted 24 hours in total: alternating 6 hours of movement and 6 hours of standing - Joshua 10:13

5. R’ Elazar - Joshua’s extended day lasted 36 hours in total: two 6-hour periods of movement and two 12-hour periods of standing - Joshua 10:13

6. R’ Shmuel bar Naḥmani - Joshua’s extended day lasted 48 hours in total, including a final 24-hour suspension

   1. Prooftext - Joshua 10:13

7. R’ Ḥiyya bar Abba citing R’ Yoḥanan - The “Book of Yashar” in David’s lament is Genesis, the book of the Patriarchs - II Samuel 1:18; Numbers 23:10

   1. Genesis alludes to Judah’s skill with the bow through Jacob’s blessing, “your hand shall be on the nape of your enemies” - Genesis 49:8

8. R’ Elazar - The “Book of Yashar” is Deuteronomy, called so because it commands doing what is “right and good” - Deuteronomy 6:18

   1. Judah’s use of the bow is alluded to in “his hands shall contend for him,” since drawing a bow requires both hands - Deuteronomy 33:7

9. R’ Shmuel bar Naḥmani - The “Book of Yashar” is Judges, whose period is described as one in which everyone did what was “right” in his own eyes - Judges 17:6

   1. The command to teach later generations warfare refers to archery; its connection to Judah follows from Judah being chosen to lead the war against the Canaanites - Judges 3:2, 1:1–2

10. R’ Yoḥanan - The portion placed before Saul was the thigh together with the tail, which rests against it - I Samuel 9:24

11. R’ Elazar - The portion was the thigh together with the breast, which is placed on the thigh for sacrificial waving

12. R’ Shmuel bar Naḥmani - The portion was the thigh together with the shofi, the upper part of the leg situated above the thigh

Appendix - Comparative Biblical and Scientific Context

The Passage

Avodah_Zarah/24a#14 thru 25a#17

R’ Ami / R’ Yitzḥak Nappaḥa - R’ Eliezer disqualifies all animals obtained from non-Jews for sacrifice (because of concern that they may have been used for bestiality)

יתיב

• רבי אמי

• ורבי יצחק נפחא

אקלעא דרבי יצחק נפחא,

פתח חד מינייהו ואמר:

וכן היה רבי אליעזר פוסל בכל הקרבנות כולן.

§ The Talmud relates:

• R’ Ami

• and R’ Yitzḥak Nappaḥa

were sitting on R’ Yitzḥak Nappaḥa’s porch.

One of them began and said that the baraita teaches:

And, similarly, R’ Eliezer would disqualify all offerings purchased from non-Jews,

due to the concern that a person had engaged in bestiality with the animals.

R’ Eliezer’s colleagues challenge R’ Eliezer: Scripture states that in the messianic future, the flocks of Kedar and rams of Nebaioth will be accepted on God’s altar - Isaiah 60:7

פתח אידך מינייהו ואמר:

מאי אותיבו ליה חברוהי לרבי אליעזר?

The other one of them began and said:

What did R’ Eliezer’s colleagues respond to him?

״כל צאן קדר יקבצו לך וגו׳״

They quoted the verse:

“All flocks of Kedar shall be gathered together unto you,

the rams of Nebaioth shall minister unto you;

they shall come up with acceptance upon My altar” (Isaiah 60:7).

This verse clearly indicates that offerings will be accepted from non-Jews in the messianic future.

R’ Eliezer’s response - In the messianic future, the non-Jews will convert to Judaism (so their animals will no longer be subject to this suspicion)

אמר להן רבי אליעזר:

כולם גרים גרורים הם לעתיד לבא.

R’ Eliezer said to them:

In the messianic future all non-Jews will convert2 to Judaism,3

and as Jews, they will not be suspected of engaging in bestiality.

Rav Yosef - The conversion of the nations in the messianic future is indicated by the prophecy that God will give the peoples a pure language so that they all call on His name - Zephaniah 3:9

אמר רב יוסף:

מאי קרא?

״כי אז אהפך אל עמים שפה ברורה וגו׳״.

Rav Yosef said:

What is the verse from which it is derived that they will convert in the messianic future?

The verse states: “For then will I turn to the peoples a pure language,

that they may all call upon the name of YHWH, to serve Him with one consent” (Zephaniah 3:9).

This verse indicates that all nations will worship God in the messianic future.

Abaye questions - The verse might mean only that the nations will abandon idolatry - Zephaniah 3:9

אמר ליה אביי:

ודלמא מעבודה זרה הוא דהדור בהו?

Abaye said to him:

But perhaps it is only from idol worship that they will withdraw,

while they will still engage in forbidden sex, including bestiality?

Rav Yosef’s response - “To serve Him with one consent” (which implies fuller acceptance of God’s commandments, not merely abandonment of idolatry) - Zephaniah 3:9

אמר ליה רב יוסף:

״לעבדו שכם אחד״ כתיב.

[...]

Rav Yosef said to him:

That cannot be, as it is written at the conclusion of the verse: “To serve Him with one consent,”

which indicates that the non-Jews will accept all of God’s mitzvot.

[...]

Question from Moses’ demand that Pharaoh supply sacrifices - Exodus 10:25

מיתיבי:

״ויאמר משה:

גם אתה תתן בידנו זבחים ועלת״

§ The Talmud cites a series of verses which present difficulties with regard to the claim that animals purchased from non-Jews may not be used as offerings.

The Talmud raises an objection from the following verse:

“And Moses said:

You must also give into our hand offerings and burnt-offerings

that we may sacrifice unto YHWH our God” (Exodus 10:25).

Moses demanded that Pharaoh provide the Jews with offerings, despite the fact that he was a non-Jew.

This does not disprove R’ Eliezer, because this occurred before the giving of the Torah

קודם מתן תורה שאני.

The Talmud explains: The halakha prior to the giving of the Torah at Sinai was different,

as at that time it was acceptable to use animals taken from non-Jews as offerings.

Question from Yitro’s sacrifices - Exodus 18:12

תא שמע:

״ויקח יתרו חתן משה

עלה וזבחים לאלהים״

The Talmud raises another objection:

Come and hear a proof from the verse:

“And Yitro, Moses’ father-in-law,

took a burnt-offering and offerings for God” (Exodus 18:12).

Yitro was not a Jew, and yet he brought offerings for God.

This likewise poses no difficulty if his arrival preceded Sinai

יתרו נמי קודם מתן תורה הוה.

The Talmud answers:

The incident with Yitro was also prior to the giving of the Torah.

according to the view that he came afterward, he must have purchased the animals from Jews

• הניחא למאן דאמר:

  • יתרו קודם מתן תורה הוה,

• אלא למאן דאמר:

  • יתרו לאחר מתן תורה הוה,

מאי איכא למימר?

The Talmud observes:

• Granted, this works out well according to the one who says that

  • the incident with Yitro was prior to the giving of the Torah.

• But according to the one who says that

  • the incident involving Yitro was after the giving of the Torah,

what is there to say?

How could they accept offerings from him?

אלא,

יתרו מישראל זבן.

Rather,

it must be that Yitro purchased the animals from a Jew.

Question from Saul’s claim that the best Amalekite livestock was spared for sacrifice - I Samuel 15:15

תא שמע:

״ויאמר שאול:

מעמלקי הביאום

אשר חמל העם על מיטב הצאן והבקר

(המשנים והכרים ועל כל הצאן)

למען זבח לה׳ אלהיך״

The Talmud further states:

Come and hear another objection from a verse:

“And Saul said:

They have brought them from the Amalekites;

for the people spared the best of the flock and of the herd,

to sacrifice unto YHWH your God” (I Samuel 15:15).

The verse states explicitly that the Israelites intended to sacrifice animals previously owned by non-Jews.

It means that their monetary value would be used to purchase sacrificial animals

מאי ״מיטב״?

דמי מיטב.

The Talmud explains: What is the meaning of the phrase: “The best”?

This is referring to the monetary value of the best livestock.

The intention was not to sacrifice the animals themselves, but to sell them and use the proceeds of the sale to purchase other animals to sacrifice as offerings.

ומאי שנא מיטב?

The Talmud inquires: And what is different about the best animals?

If the animals were sold for their value, why sell those animals in particular, rather than several inferior-quality animals?

כי היכי דליקפץ עליהו זבינא.

The Talmud explains that they did so in order that buyers would jump at the opportunity to buy superior-quality livestock.

In other words, it is easier to sell one superior-quality animal than several inferior-quality ones.

Anonymous Galilean - The Noah narrative contains 13 occurrences of Hebrew letter vav (“and”) followed by yod, spelling vay (“woe” - symbolizing the suffering caused by wine) - Genesis 9:20–24

דריש עובר גלילאה:

שלש עשרה ווין נאמר ביין:

1. ״ויחל נח איש האדמה,

2. ויטע כרם,

3. וישת מן היין,

4. וישכר,

5. ויתגל בתוך אהלו,

6. וירא חם אבי כנען את ערות אביו,

7. ויגד לשני אחיו בחוץ,

8. ויקח שם ויפת את השמלה,

9. וישימו על שכם שניהם,

10. וילכו אחרנית,

11. ויכסו את ערות אביהם, ופניהם וגו׳״,

12. ״וייקץ נח מיינו,

13. וידע את אשר עשה לו בנו הקטן״.

A visitor1 from the Galilee expounded:

The initial vav2 is stated 13 times in the passage concerning wine, as it is stated:

1. “And Noah began [va-yaḥel] to be a farmer,

2. and he planted [va-yita] a vineyard,

3. and he drank [va-yesht] of the wine,

4. and was drunk [va-yishkar];

5. and he was uncovered [va-yitgal] within his tent.

6. And Ham, the father of Canaan, saw [va-yar] the nakedness of his father,

7. and told [va-yaged] his two brothers outside.

8. And Shem and Japheth took [va-yikaḥ] the garment,

9. and laid it [va-yasimu] upon both their shoulders,

10. and went [va-yelekhu] backward,

11. and covered [va-yekhasu] the nakedness of their father; and their faces were backward, and they did not see their father’s nakedness.

12. And Noah awoke [va-yiketz] from his wine,

13. and knew [va-yeda] what his younger son had done to him” (Genesis 9:20–24).

All 13 instances of the initial vav here are followed by the letter yod.3 Vav and yod together form the word vay, meaning “woe,” and allude to the suffering and misfortune caused by uncontrolled drinking.

Rav and Shmuel - One says Ham castrated Noah; the other says he sexually penetrated him - Genesis 9:22–24

רב ושמואל:

• חד אמר

  • סרסו,

• וחד אמר

  • רבעו.

Having cited the passage discussing Noah, the Talmud enters into a discussion about what was actually done to him by his younger son, Ham.

Rav and Shmuel disagreed:

• One says that

  • Ham castrated Noah

• and one says that

  • Ham sexually penetrated him (רבעו)

The castration view explains why Noah cursed Ham through his 4th son, Canaan: Ham prevented Noah from having a 4th son - Genesis 10:6; Genesis 9:25

מאן דאמר סרסו:

מתוך שקלקלו ברביעי --

קללו ברביעי.

The Talmud explains:

The one who says that Ham castrated Noah adduces the following proof:

Since he injured Noah with respect to the possibility of conceiving a 4th son, which Noah wanted but could no longer have --

therefore Noah cursed him by means of Ham’s 4th son.

Ham’s sons were Cush, Mizraim, Put, and Canaan (see Genesis 10:6), and of all of these, it was Canaan whom Noah cursed (see Genesis 9:25–28).

The view that Ham sexually penetrated Noah derives Ham’s act through a verbal analogy between “and he saw” in Noah’s story and “and he saw” in the account of Shechem’s rape of Dinah - Genesis 9:22; Genesis 34:2

ומאן דאמר רבעו:

גמר

• ״וירא״

• ״וירא״.

• כתיב הכא:

  • ״וירא חם אבי כנען את ערות אביו״,

• וכתיב התם:

  • ״וירא אותה שכם בן חמור וגו׳״.

[...]

And the one who says that Ham sexually penetrated Noah

learned this from a verbal analogy between the words

• “and he saw”

• and “and he saw.”

• Here it is written:

  • “And Ham, the father of Canaan, saw the nakedness of his father”;

• and there it is written:

  • “And Shechem, son of Hamor the Hivite, prince of the country, saw her, and he took her, and lay with her, and afflicted her” (Genesis 34:2).

This indicates that the term “saw” alludes to sex.

[...]

Rav Ḥisda citing Rav Ukva / Mar Ukva citing R’ Zakkai - God rebuked Noah for failing to learn from Adam, whose downfall was likewise caused by wine

״ויחל נח איש האדמה

ויטע כרם״.

אמר רב חסדא, אמר רב עוקבא,

ואמרי לה: מר עוקבא, אמר רבי זכאי:

אמר לו הקדוש ברוך הוא לנח:

נח!

לא היה לך ללמוד מאדם הראשון

שלא גרם לו אלא יין?!

The Talmud continues to analyze the passage relating to Noah. The verse states:

“And Noah began to be a farmer,

and he planted a vineyard.”

In explanation of this matter, Rav Ḥisda says that Rav Ukva says,

and some say that Mar Ukva says that R’ Zakkai says:

God said to Noah:

Noah!

shouldn’t you have learned from Adam the first man,

whose banishment from the Garden of Eden was caused only by wine?!

This is according to the view that the Tree of Knowledge was a grapevine - Genesis 9:20

כמאן דאמר אותו אילן שאכל ממנו אדם הראשון –

גפן היה.

The Talmud notes:

This is in accordance with the opinion of the one who says that the tree from which Adam the first man ate --

was a grapevine.

R’ Meir - The Tree of Knowledge was a grapevine, since wine uniquely brings wailing and trouble upon a person

דתניא:

רבי מאיר אומר,

אותו אילן שאכל אדם הראשון ממנו –

גפן היה,

שאין לך דבר שמביא יללה לאדם אלא יין.

As it is taught in a baraita:

R’ Meir says:

The tree from which Adam the first man ate --

was a grapevine,

As, even today, nothing except wine brings wailing (יללה) and trouble upon a person;

most sins are caused by drunkenness.

R’ Yehuda - The Tree of Knowledge was wheat, as a child does not acquire the knowledge to call “father” and “mother” until tasting grain