Pt1 Defending God, Biblical Monotheism, and Jewish Distinctiveness: Twelve Dialogues Between Sages and Challengers in the Talmud (Sanhedrin 38b-39a)

Intro; Outline; Dialogues #1-2; R' Meir's Threefold Teaching Style and the Legacy of His Fox Fables

This is the first part of a three-part series. The outline is below.¹

Intro

This sugya presents a series of encounters where Jewish sages engage with non-Jewish challengers—heretics, Roman emperors, and magi—who question or critique core rabbinic beliefs and interpretations of the Hebrew Bible. Each dialogue centers on a particular biblical verse or theological concept, with the challengers often drawing on the literal language of scripture to propose heretical interpretations. Their critiques suggest ideas of dualism (or trinitarianism), polytheism, or flawed perspectives on divine actions, all aimed at destabilizing the Jewish monotheistic worldview.

Nearly all of these challenges and responses revolve around biblical verses, with the exception of the exchange with the magus, where the Bible’s authority was irrelevant due to Zoroastrianism’s dismissal of it. In contrast, the Roman emperor appears to regard the Bible as authoritative, likely reflecting the influence of Christianity in the Roman Empire.

The Roman Emperor presents various philosophical and theological challenges. In one exchange, he suggests assimilation, leading to R’ Tanhum being sentenced to death by wild beasts, followed by a miraculous deliverance. Meanwhile, a section on R’ Meir’s teaching style and legacy of fox fables serves as an interlude, highlighting his unique method of using parables and allegories (such as fox fables) to interpret biblical themes.

In their responses, sages like Rabban Gamliel and R' Abbahu draw upon biblical verses, parables, and analogies to counter these challenges, affirming a monotheistic interpretation. Their replies range from logical rebuttals to metaphorical demonstrations, such as spinning objects to illustrate cosmic movement or cooking to avert aversion, blending intellectual debate with vivid examples. These exchanges underscore the sages' commitment to uphold monotheism amidst competing ideologies.

The dialogues culminate in a reaffirmation of Jewish distinctiveness and devotion, as the sages confront questions about the Bible’s portrayal of divinity and its ethical and ritual commandments.

Outline

1. Dialogue #1 - Heretic vs. Rav Idit: Exodus 24:1 - “And to Moses He said: Come up to the Lord” - “Come up to the Lord” implies worship of another deity

2. Dialogue #2 - Heretic vs. R' Yishmael son of R' Yosei and an Anonymous Launderer: Genesis 19:24 - “And the Lord rained…brimstone and fire from the Lord out of heaven” - It should say “from Him,” not “from the Lord,” implying a duality

   1. R' Meir's Threefold Teaching Style and the Legacy of His Fox Fables

3. Dialogue #3 - Roman Emperor vs. Rabban Gamliel and an Anonymous Woman: Genesis 2:21 - “He took one of his sides…” - God is a thief for taking Adam’s rib to create Eve

   1. Part 1 - The Emperor’s Critique: God Stole Adam’s Rib to Create Eve; Anonymous Woman’s Response: It Was Worth It

   2. Part 2 - Eve’s Creation While Adam Slept: Ensuring Acceptance, Like Cooking Raw Meat Privately to Avoid Repulsion

4. Dialogue #4 - Roman Emperor vs. Rabban Gamliel: Claims knowledge of God’s actions and location

5. Dialogue #5 - Roman Emperor vs. Rabban Gamliel: Psalms 147:4 - “He counts the number of the stars…” - There is no greatness in counting stars; humans can count them too

6. Dialogue #6 - Roman Emperor vs. Rabban Gamliel: Amos 4:13 - Different verbs imply two deities created different parts of creation

7. Dialogue #7 - Magus vs. Ameimar: Dualistic view: upper body belongs to one deity, lower body to another

8. Dialogue #8 - Roman Emperor vs. R' Tanḥum: Proposes unification of Jews and Romans into one people; Sentenced to Death by Wild Beasts; and Miraculous Deliverance

9. Dialogue #9 - Roman Emperor vs. Rabban Gamliel: There must be many deities, since the divine dwells wherever there is a quorum ten Jewish men

10. Dialogue #10 - Heretic vs. R' Abbahu: Ezekiel 4:4-6 - “Lie on your left side…Lie on your right side” - God is joking by making Ezekiel lie on different sides

11. Dialogue #11 - Heretic vs. R' Abbahu: Exodus 25:2 - “Take for Me an offering [teruma]” - God must be a priest to accept offerings, so He needed ritual immersion after burying Moses

12. Dialogue #12 - Heretic vs. R' Avina: II Samuel 7:23 - “And who is like Your people, Israel, one nation in the earth” - Jews are in fact no greater than others, as “All nations before Him are as nothing” (Isaiah 40:17)

    1. Appendix - table summarizing the twelve debates: Challenger; Rabbinic Sage; Biblical Verse; Heretical Interpretation; Rabbinic Interpretation

The Passage

Sanhedrin.38b.19-39b.1

Dialogue #1 - Heretic vs. Rav Idit: Exodus 24:1 - “And to Moses He said: Come up to the Lord” - “Come up to the Lord” implies worship of another deity

Rav Naḥman advises that only those knowledgeable enough, like Rav Idit,² should engage with heretics in theological biblical debates. 

The Talmud recounts a theological biblical debate between Rav Idit and a heretic:

The heretic questions a biblical verse (Exodus 24:1, in (in the context of Moses ascending Mount Sinai to speak to God) where God says to Moses: “Come up to the Lord”. The heretic asks that the verse should have said “Come up to Me,” suggesting that God was speaking (instead, it shows that the Bible doesn’t espouse pure monotheism, rather dualism/trinitarianism/polytheism). 

Rav Idit explains that "the Lord" in this context refers to the angel Metatron, who bears God’s name. 

The heretic then argues that if Metatron represents God, he should be worshiped. 

Rav Idit refutes this, citing a verse that implies Metatron should not replace God. When the heretic questions the phrase about the angel’s inability to pardon, Rav Idit explains that the Jewish people didn’t even accept Metatron as a guide, as Moses insisted on God’s direct presence with them.

אמר רב נחמן: 

האי מאן דידע לאהדורי למינים כרב אידית -- ליהדר 

ואי לא -- לא ליהדר 

אמר ההוא מינא לרב אידית: 

כתיב (שמות כד, א): 

"ואל משה אמר: 

עלה אל ה'", 

"עלה אלי" מיבעי ליה!

א"ל: 

זהו מטטרון 

ששמו כשם רבו 

דכתיב (שמות כג, כא): "כי שמי בקרבו"

אי הכי, ניפלחו ליה? 

כתיב (שמות כג, כא): "אל תמר בו" 

אל תמירני בו 

אם כן "לא ישא לפשעכם" למה לי? 

א"ל: 

הימנותא בידן, דאפילו בפרוונקא נמי לא קבילניה 

דכתיב (שמות לג, טו): 

"ויאמר אליו: 

אם אין פניך הולכים וגו'"

Rav Naḥman says:

This one, i.e., any person, who knows how to respond to the heretics as effectively as Rav Idit should respond to them,

but if he does not know, he should not respond to them.

The Gemara relates: A certain heretic said to Rav Idit:

It is written in the verse concerning God:

“And to Moses He said:

Come up to the Lord” (Exodus 24:1).

The heretic raised a question: It should have stated: Come up to Me.

Rav Idit said to him:

This term, “the Lord,” in that verse is referring to the angel Metatron,

whose name is like the name of his Master,

as it is written: “Behold I send an angel before you to keep you in the way and to bring you to the place that I have prepared. Take heed of him and obey his voice; do not defy him; for he will not pardon your transgression, for My name is in him” (Exodus 23:20–21).

The heretic said to him: If so, if this angel is equated with God, we should worship him as we worship God.

Rav Idit said to him: It is written: “Do not defy [tammer] him,”

which alludes to: Do not replace Me [temireni] with him.

The heretic said to him: If so, why do I need the clause “For he will not pardon your transgression”?

Rav Idit said to him:

We believe that we did not accept the angel even as a guide [befarvanka] for the journey,

as it is written:

“And he said to him:

If Your Presence go not with me raise us not up from here” (Exodus 33:15). Moses told God that if God Himself does not accompany the Jewish people they do not want to travel to Eretz Yisrael.

Dialogue #2 - Heretic vs. R' Yishmael son of R' Yosei and an Anonymous Launderer: Genesis 19:24 - “And the Lord rained…brimstone and fire from the Lord out of heaven” - It should say “from Him,” not “from the Lord,” implying a duality

A heretic challenges R' Yishmael son of R' Yosei, by questioning the phrasing of Genesis 19:24 (in the context of God’s destruction of Sodom and Gomorrah), where it says, “And the Lord rained… from the Lord out of heaven,” arguing that it should instead say, “from Him” (implying that pure monotheism isn’t true). 

Before R' Yishmael can respond, an unnamed launderer (ההוא כובס) interjects, saying: “Leave him be (שבקיה)! I will respond to him”. 

The launderer draws a parallel to Genesis 4:23, where Lemech addresses his wives as “wives of Lemech” rather than “my wives.” The launderer argues that this shows that this phrasing is simply a stylistic feature of the Bible’s language.³

אמר ליה ההוא מינא לר' ישמעאל בר' יוסי: 

כתיב (בראשית יט, כד): "וה' המטיר על סדום ועל עמורה גפרית ואש מאת ה'"

"מאתו" מיבעי ליה!

א"ל ההוא כובס: 

שבקיה! אנא מהדרנא ליה 

דכתיב (בראשית ד, כג): 

"ויאמר למך לנשיו, עדה וצלה: 

"שמען קולי נשי למך!"

"נשיי" מיבעי ליה! 

אלא משתעי קרא הכי, 

הכא נמי, משתעי קרא הכי 

The Gemara relates: A certain heretic said to R' Yishmael, son of R' Yosei:

It is written: “And the Lord rained upon Sodom and upon Gomorrah brimstone and fire from the Lord out of heaven” (Genesis 19:24).

The heretic raised the question: It should have stated: From Him out of heaven. 

A certain launderer said to R' Yishmael:

Leave him be; I will respond to him.

This is as it is written:

“And Lemech said to his wives: Adah and Zillah, hear my voice; wives of Lemech, hearken to my speech” (Genesis 4:23).

One can raise the question: It should have been written: My wives, and not: “Wives of Lemech.”

Rather, it is the style of the verse to speak in this manner.

Here too, it is the style of the verse to speak in this manner. 

R' Meir's Threefold Teaching Style and the Legacy of His Fox Fables

R' Yishmael son of R' Yosei, impressed, asked the launderer where he had heard this particular interpretation, and the launderer replied that he heard it from R' Meir’s lecture (פירקיה). 

The Talmud explains, based on R' Yoḥanan’s comments, that R' Meir’s lectures were divided into three parts: one-third halakha (שמעתא), one-third aggada (אגדתא), and one-third parables.⁴ 

R' Yoḥanan also notes that R' Meir taught 300 fox fables,⁵ but only three have been preserved; those relating to the following verses: 

1. Ezekiel 18:2 ("The fathers have eaten sour grapes, and the children’s teeth are set on edge"), 

2. Leviticus 19:36 ("Just balances, just weights…shall you have"), 

3. Proverbs 11:8 ("The righteous is delivered out of trouble, and the wicked comes in his stead").

א"ל: מנא לך הא? 

מפירקיה דר"מ שמיע לי

דא"ר יוחנן: 

כי הוה דריש ר' מאיר בפירקיה, הוה דריש 

1. תילתא שמעתא 

2. תילתא אגדתא 

3. תילתא מתלי 

ואמר ר' יוחנן: 

ג' מאות משלות שועלים היו לו לרבי מאיר 

ואנו, אין לנו אלא שלש:

1. (יחזקאל יח, ב) "אבות יאכלו בוסר, ושיני בנים תקהינה"

2. (ויקרא יט, לו) "מאזני צדק, אבני צדק" 

3. (משלי יא, ח) "צדיק מצרה נחלץ, ויבא רשע תחתיו"

R' Yishmael said to the launderer: From where did you hear this interpretation?

The launderer said to him: I heard it at the lecture of R' Meir.

The Gemara comments: This is as R' Yoḥanan said:

When R' Meir would teach his lecture he would expound

1. one-third halakha,

2. one-third aggada,

3. and one-third parables.

And R' Yoḥanan says: R' Meir had, i.e., taught, three hundred parables of foxes, and we have only three. And they are the parables concerning the following verses:

1. “The fathers have eaten sour grapes, and the children’s teeth are set on edge” (Ezekiel 18:2);

2. “Just balances, just weights…shall you have” (Leviticus 19:36);

3. and “The righteous is delivered out of trouble, and the wicked comes in his stead” (Proverbs 11:8).

1. Re theological debates in the Talmud, see the following relevant previous pieces:

• “Refuting Heresy: Talmudic Responses to Heretical Claims of Divine Multiplicity in Scripture (Sanhedrin 38b)”

• A cycle of dialogues with heretics or non-Jews in tractate Avodah Zarah, Part 2 here.

• A debate between R’ Yehuda Hanasi with a theistic dualist.

See also “Four Philosophical Dialogues Between R’ Yehuda Hanasi and the Roman Antoninus (Sanhedrin 91a-b)“; and “Proclus and Rabban Gamliel: A Philosophical Exchange on Idolatry and Civic Spaces Outside of Aphrodite's Bathhouse (Mishnah Avodah Zarah 3:4)“.

2. רב אידית - this is the only place this person is mentioned.

3. This style is called illeism, where a speaker refers to themselves in the third person rather than using first-person pronouns like "I" or "my." In biblical and classical texts, illeism can serve to convey authority, create narrative distance, or emphasize the speaker's role or identity in a more formal, elevated way.

Notably, this is a distinctive stylistic feature of the Talmud itself, see Wikipedia there:

In the Babylonian Talmud and related texts, illeism is used extensively, often taking the form of the speaker utilizing the expression hahu gavra ("That man") when referring to himself.

4. מתלי - cognate with Hebrew משל - mashal.

5. משלות שועלים.

Compare Aesop's Fables:

A collection of fables credited to Aesop, a slave and storyteller who lived in ancient Greece between 620 and 564 BCE.

For example: The Fox and the Grapes.

For scholarly literature on the Aesop’s fables and talmudic literature, see ÆSOP'S FABLES AMONG THE JEWS - JewishEncyclopedia.com, and Shamma Friedman, “הפתגם ושברו: עיון בתרבות המשל בספרות התלמודית”, JSIJ 2 (2003), pp. 25-82.

Compare also R’ Yohanan’s statement quoted by the Talmud in tractate Eruvin, that R’ Meir’s statements weren’t fully understood by his colleagues, quoted in my piece here.