This is the first part of a two-part series. For the outline of the series, see below.1
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
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
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
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
R’ Yosei bar Hanina - God Himself does not rejoice at the destruction of the wicked, though He causes others to rejoice
The causative form yasis supports this distinction - Deuteronomy 28:63
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
Rava - “prostitutes” means actual images of prostitutes that Jezebel placed in Ahab’s chariot to arouse him - I Kings 22:38
R’ Elazar - The archer who struck Ahab did so innocently and without specifically aiming at him - I Kings 22:34
Rava - Le-tummo alludes to “completing” the two prophetic visions of Micaiah and Elijah through Ahab’s death
Part 2
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
A bat kol affirmed Obadiah’s righteousness, and blamed Ahab’s household
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
R’ Yitzhak - Obadiah merited prophecy because he hid 100 prophets from Jezebel - 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
R’ Abbahu - Obadiah used two groups of 50 simply because a cave could not hold 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
Efrayim Miksha’a citing R’ Meir - Obadiah was an Edomite convert
Fitting the proverb that “the ax that destroys the forest comes from the forest itself”
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
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
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
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
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
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.
For the previous sugya, see my three-part series, “Defending God, Biblical Monotheism, and Jewish Distinctiveness: Twelve Dialogues Between Sages and Challengers in the Talmud (Sanhedrin 38b-39a)”, final part: Pt3.
Note that this king is Mesha, and a description of this battle is found in the famous Mesha Stele.
The following passages are paralleled elsewhere, see my “Pt1 Thematic Introductions to the Book of Esther in the Talmud (Megillah 10b-11a)“, section “3 - R’ Yehoshua ben Levi: Does God Rejoice Over the Downfall of the Wicked? (Deuteronomy 28:63; II Chronicles 20:21; Exodus 14:20)“.
מצונן - literally: “cold”.
Steinsaltz explains: “[Ahab] did not lust for women“.
On this word, see Jastrow (modernized), entry “צָנַן”:
(compare סָנַן)
[to sting; (of taste) to be pungent; (of color) to be bright, polished];
(of temperature) to be cold.
Mekhilta Yithro section 4 - רחק ממנה צ׳ if he is removed from it, he is cold.
Jerusalem Talmud Pesachim 4:8:2 - שלא תִיצַן that she (the donkey in heat) may not cool off (before copulation).
Bereishit Rabbah 87:7 איקונין … וצָ׳ דמו - he saw his father’s image before him, and his blood grew cold; ibid. s. 98 וצינן (correct accordingly, or וצוּנָּן);
and elsewhere.
See צוֹנָן.
Nif’al- נָצַן to become cold.
Yerushalmi Horayot 3, 46d - יָצֵן - he must become cold (suppress his passion);
לא ה׳ if he does not cool off (what shall he do)?
Yoma 2a - ויהא מֵיצַן and he will cool off.
Yoma 2a - ראה … מיד ה׳ he saw his father’s image and at once was cooled off (see above).
Bereishit Rabbah 20:6 שמא תִיצּוֹן (Nif’al:), see next word
Hif’il - הוּצַן to be cooled off.
Mishnah Avodah Zarah 3:9 ישן יוּצַן if it is an old oven, it must be allowed to cool off (before being used again);
Pi’el - צִנֵּן to cool off.
Shabbat 53a:11 לצַנְּנָהּ to cause the perspiring animal to cool off, as opposed to לחממה to keep her warm.
Bava Batra 74b סירס … וצינן הנקבה he emasculated the male (Leviathan), and cooled the female.
Shemot Rabbah 10:2 ומְצַנְּנִין אותו (not ומצנן) they caused the stove to cool off.
Pesachim 118a the angel Gabriel said, ארד וַאֲצַנֵּן וכ׳ let me go down and cool the furnace etc.;
and elsewhere.
[Bereishit Rabbah 98, see above.]
Pu’al - צוּנָּן to be cooled off.
Bereishit Rabbah 98, see above.
participle מְצוּנָּן; feminine מְצוּנֶּנֶת.
Mishnah Chullin 3:5 המצוננת - an animal suffering from frost;
Nitpa’el - נִצְטַנֵּן to become cold; to get chills.
Shabbat 129a:10 הקיז דם ונצטנן - if one has chills after blood-letting.
Yoma 77a:3 אלמלא לא נִצְטַנְּנוּ וכ׳ if the coals had not been cooled off on their transmission from the hand of the Cherub etc.
Sotah 11b; Shemot Rabbah 1:14 מִצְטַנְּנוֹת, see יָרֵךְ;
and elsewhere.
And see next note.
יתחמם - literally: “become warm, warm up”.
For the use of the metaphor “heat” to mean “sexual arousal, lust, passion”, compare the verse about David and Abishag, which is often understood to refer to sexual arousal.
לפי תומו - lefi tummo - literally: “innocently”.
On this word, see Wiktionary, “תם“, section “תֹּם ב“; and see Jastrow (modernized), entry “תּוֹם”:
(Biblical Hebrew תֹּם; תָּמַם)
simplicity, integrity.
Pesikta Rabbati 21:1 גלוי … בשבועתם בתוּמֵּיהֶם ושבטו של לוי עומד בתוּמּוֹ (not בתומיא) it is revealed and known before you that all the tribes will fail to abide by their oath in rectitude, and that the tribe of Levi will stand by its rectitude.
Midrash Tehillim 7:8 כתוּמִּי, see עַקְמוּמִית;
and elsewhere.
Especially הסיח לפי תומו to talk in one’s simplicity, to make a statement in ignorance of its legal bearing.
Yevamot 121b:15 במסיח לפי תומו when the non-Jew makes an incidental statement (not as formal testimony).
Bava Kamma 114b:20-23 תינוק … מסיח לפי תומו ואמר וכ׳ a child talking in his innocence said, I and my mother were captives etc.
Gittin 28b כל מסיח לפי תומו הימוני מהימני ליה whenever a non-Jew makes an informal statement, we believe him (act on it as evidence);
and frequently.