Pt1 Elisha Narratives in II Kings 2-8, From Failure to Accompany to Failure to Reprove Gently: Jericho’s Youths, Bethel’s Bears, Gehazi, and the Principle of Measured Rejection (Sotah 46b-47a)
Appendix: The story of R’ Yehoshua ben Peraḥya and his student Jesus
This is the first part of a two-part series. The outline of the series is below.
Part 1
The sugya begins with R’ Yoḥanan citing R’ Meir establishing a foundational principle: anyone who does not accompany another on their way, or who refuses to be accompanied, is regarded as a murderer. The Talmud immediately applies this to the story of Elisha and the children of Bethel (II Kings 2:23–24). Had the people of Jericho accompanied Elisha, they would have prevented the youths from approaching him, and thus the mauling by bears would not have occurred. Their taunt, “Go up, baldhead,”1 is interpreted to mean: “Go up from here, for you have made the place ‘bald’ for us,” referencing that Elisha had healed Jericho’s water, removing the locals’ livelihood.
The sugya analyzes the biblical phrase “ne’arim ketannim”:
R’ Elazar interprets ne’arim as meno’arim—“emptied of mitzvot”—and ketannim as “small in faith.”
A baraita asserts they were physically “lads,” but degraded themselves like children.
The verse says Elisha “turned and saw them.” Four explanations identify what he “saw”:
Rav: He literally fixed his gaze, evoking the principle taught by Rabban Shimon ben Gamliel that where the Sages “place their eyes” (i.e. gaze with the evil eye) the result is death or poverty.
Shmuel: Elisha perceived that all their mothers had conceived them on Yom Kippur.
R’ Yitzḥak Nappaḥa: He saw that they wore a blorit, a non-Jewish hairstyle.
R’ Yoḥanan: He saw total absence of “moisture of mitzva,” which R’ Elazar expands to mean not only in them but in all their descendants.
A dispute follows between Rav and Shmuel whether the episode involved one miracle (forest pre-existing, bears created) or a miracle within a miracle (both forest and bears created).
R’ Ḥanina links the number 42 to the 42 offerings Balak brought. The Talmud questions the implication: since Balak’s offerings are elsewhere said to have earned him the reward of Ruth, ultimately leading to Solomon, who offered 1,000 offerings. The answer: although Balak’s offerings earned him positive reward, his intent was to curse Israel, and thus the curse was fulfilled as well.
Returning to II Kings 2:19, the sugya asks how Jericho can be called “pleasant” despite its bad water. R’ Ḥanin introduces the principle “the grace of a place is upon its inhabitants,” expanded by R’ Yoḥanan into a triad: grace of place, woman, and purchase.
Part 2
A baraita lists three illnesses of Elisha: one for the bear incident, one for pushing Gehazi away with both hands, and one his terminal illness. This leads to the baraita: “Let the left hand push away and the right draw close,” contrasted with Elisha’s treatment of Gehazi and with Yehoshua ben Peraḥya’s treatment of Jesus.
The sugya details the Gehazi narrative. Elisha rebukes Gehazi for taking wealth from Naaman; R’ Yitzḥak notes that Elisha happened to be studying the laws of eight “creeping things” (sheratzim), reflected in his mention of eight items. R’ Yoḥanan identifies Gehazi and his three sons as the four metzoraim in II Kings 7:3. Elisha later travels to Damascus to bring Gehazi to repentance, but Gehazi refuses, citing a dictum learned from Elisha: one who sins and causes the many to sin is not enabled to repent.
The sugya then investigates Gehazi’s actions that “caused the masses to sin”:
Using a magnetic stone to suspend Jeroboam’s calf, giving it the appearance of floating.
Engraving the Tetragrammaton on its mouth, making it “say” the first two commandments.
Pushing the sages away, inferred from the later complaint that the disciples’ dwelling place had become cramped only after Gehazi was expelled.
The sugya then presents the detailed episode of Yehoshua ben Peraḥya and Jesus, illustrating the consequences of “pushing with both hands”: the misinterpreted hand-gesture during Shema, Jesus’ turn to idolatry, and his response that he had learned the principle that one who sins and causes others to sin is barred from repentance.
The sugya concludes with a baraita of R’ Shimon ben Elazar applying the principle of “left hand pushes, right hand draws close” to the evil inclination, to children, and to women.
Outline
Intro
The Passage - Elisha Narratives in II Kings 2-8, From Failure to Accompany to Failure to Reprove Gently: Jericho’s Youths, Bethel’s Bears, Gehazi, and the Principle of Measured Rejection (Sotah 46b-47a)
R’ Yoḥanan citing R’ Meir - Whoever does not accompany others, or refuses to be accompanied, is like a murderer
Prooftext - had the people of Jericho accompanied Elisha, the youths would not have been mauled by bears - II Kings 2:23
“Go up, away from here, for you have made the place bald, i.e., bare, for us”
R’ Elazar- they were emptied out of mitzvot and small in faith - II Kings 2:23
Baraita - They were in fact “lads” (of age) but behaved and degraded themselves like small children - II Kings 2:23
“And he turned behind him and saw them, and he cursed them in the name of YHWH” (II Kings 2:24) - What did Elisha see?
Rav - Elisha “saw” the youths by fixing his gaze (=gave evil eye)
Rabban Shimon ben Gamliel - General principle: wherever the sages “set their eyes” (=give evil eye), the outcome is either death or poverty
Shmuel - Elisha saw that all their mothers had conceived them on Yom Kippur (when sex is forbidden)
R’ Yitzḥak Nappaḥa - Elisha saw that they wore a blorit (plaited hair) like non-Jews
R’ Yoḥanan - Elisha saw that they had no “moisture of mitzva” at all
R’ Elazar - Elisha perceived that mitzvot would be absent not only in them but in their descendants for all generations
Rav and Shmuel - One holds there was a single miracle (bears created, forest pre-existing); the other holds there was a double miracle (both forest and bears created) - II Kings 2:24
R’ Ḥanina
Rav Yehuda citing Rav - One should always engage in Torah and mitzvot even not for their own sake
Prooftext - Balak’s 42 offerings, though aimed at cursing Israel, merited him Ruth and ultimately Solomon, who brought 1,000 burnt-offerings - I Kings 3:4
R’ Yosei ben Ḥoni - Identifies Ruth as daughter of Eglon, son of Balak, linking Moabite royal lineage to Israelite kingship
R’ Ḥanin - Explains how the city can be “pleasant” despite bad water and miscarrying land: people are attached to their place; “the grace of a place is upon its inhabitants” - II Kings 2:19
R’ Yoḥanan Lists 3 forms of “grace”: of a place on its inhabitants, of a woman on her husband, and of a purchase on its buyer - II Kings 2:19
Part 2
Baraita - Elisha became ill 3 times: for inciting the bears against the children, for pushing Gehazi away with both hands, and the illness from which he died - II Kings 13:14
Baraita - One’s left hand should push away while the right draws close
this is contrasted with Elisha toward Gehazi and Yehoshua ben Peraḥya toward Jesus the Nazarene, who pushed away with “both hands”
the incident with Elisha
R’ Yitzḥak - Elisha was studying the laws of the 8 creeping things when he rebuked Gehazi; listing 8 items shows he told Gehazi he was now receiving his (divine) reward for that study - II Kings 5:26–27
R’ Yoḥanan - Identifies the 4 metzoraim outside the city as Gehazi and his 3 sons - II Kings 7:3
R’ Yoḥanan - Explains that Elisha went to Damascus in order to bring Gehazi back to repentance, but Gehazi refused, citing a maxim learned from Elisha about one who sins and causes the many to sin - II Kings 8:7
Gehazi’s sins
using a magnetic stone to suspend Jeroboam’s calf,
Engraving the divine name (=Tetragrammaton) so it “spoke” the first two of the Ten Commandments
pushing disciples away from Elisha and limiting access to him
R’ Shimon ben Elazar - With respect to the evil inclination, a child, and a woman, one should “push with the left and draw close with the right”
Appendix 1 - The story of R’ Yehoshua ben Peraḥya and his student Jesus (Sotah 47a)
R’ Yehoshua ben Peraḥya flight to Alexandria
Shimon ben Shataḥ’s letter to R’ Yehoshua ben Peraḥya
R’ Yehoshua ben Peraḥya at the inn
Jesus’ faux pas and consequent excommunication
the misinterpreted hand-gesture during Shema
Jesus’ response: R’ Yehoshua ben Peraḥya taught him the principle that one who sins and causes others to sin is barred from repentance
Jesus’ sorcery, sins, and causing others to sin
Appendix 2 - Homiletic Readings Organized by Biblical Verse (Kings)
II Kings 2:19 — “Behold, the situation of the city is pleasant… but the water is bad”
II Kings 2:23 — “And he went up from there to Bethel… young lads came out”
II Kings 2:24 — “He turned, saw them, and cursed them…” and the two bears
What did Elisha “see”? — Four readings
Two miracles or one? — Rav and Shmuel
Purpose of the forest
R. Ḥanina — Why 42 children?
II Kings 5:2 — “A young minor girl (na‘ara ketana)” (side discussion)
II Kings 5:23–27 — Gehazi and Naaman’s gifts
R. Yoḥanan — Identity of the four lepers (II Kings 7:3)
II Kings 6:1 — “The place is too narrow for us”
II Kings 7:3 — “Four men who were lepers”
II Kings 8:7 — “Elisha came to Damascus”
II Kings 13:14 — “Elisha became ill with the illness from which he would die”
The Passage
R’ Yoḥanan citing R’ Meir - Whoever does not accompany others, or refuses to be accompanied, is like a murderer
אמר רבי יוחנן, משום רבי מאיר:
כל שאינו מלוה
ומתלוה —
כאילו שופך דמים,
The Talmud continues to discuss the importance of accompaniment.
R’ Yoḥanan says in the name of R’ Meir:
Whoever does not accompany (מלוה) another
or will not allow himself to be accompanied (מתלוה) --
is like a murderer
and is held responsible for any deaths that occur as a result of his inaction.
Prooftext - had the people of Jericho accompanied Elisha, the youths would not have been mauled by bears - II Kings 2:23
שאילמלי ליווהו אנשי יריחו לאלישע --
לא גירה דובים לתינוקות,
שנאמר:
״ויעל משם בית אל
והוא עלה בדרך
ונערים קטנים יצאו מן העיר
ויתקלסו בו
ויאמרו לו:
עלה קרח, עלה קרח״.
The proof for this is that had the inhabitants of Jericho accompanied Elisha --
he would not have incited (גירה) the bears to attack the children,
as it is stated:
“And he went up from there to Bethel,
and as he was going up by the way,
there came forth young lads out of the city
and mocked him,
and said to him:
Go up, baldhead; go up, baldhead” (II Kings 2:23).
Had the residents of Jericho accompanied him, they would have sent away those youths and prevented what occurred next.
“Go up, away from here, for you have made the place bald, i.e., bare, for us”
אמרו לו:
עלה,
שהקרחת עלינו את המקום.
The Talmud proceeds to discuss this episode in detail, beginning with the meaning of the youths’ taunt.
They said to him:
Go up, away from here,
for you have made the place bald,2 i.e., bare, for us.
They had previously earned their living by providing the city of Jericho with water. Elisha sweetened the city’s own water, rendering their services unnecessary.
R’ Elazar- they were emptied out of mitzvot and small in faith - II Kings 2:23
מאי ״ונערים קטנים״?
אמר רבי אלעזר:
שמנוערים מן המצות,
״קטנים״ —
שהיו מקטני אמנה
The Talmud asks: What is the meaning of: “Young lads [ne’arim ketanim]”?
One would have expected the verse to state either “young” or “lads,” but not both.
R’ Elazar says:
The word “lads [ne’arim]” means that they were shaken empty [meno’arim] of the mitzvot;
the word “young [ketanim]” —
means that they were of little faith [ketanei amana],
as they had no trust that they would be able to earn their livelihood by any other means.
Baraita - They were in fact “lads” (of age) but behaved and degraded themselves like small children - II Kings 2:23
תנא:
נערים היו,
ובזבזו עצמן כקטנים.
The Sages taught:
They were lads,
that is, already of age, but they disgraced themselves like young children.
מתקיף לה רב יוסף:
ודלמא על שם מקומן?
Rav Yosef objects to this interpretation:
And perhaps they were called ne’arim after their place of origin?
מי לא כתיב:
״וארם יצאו גדודים
וישבו מארץ ישראל נערה קטנה״,
וקשיא לן:
״נערה״
ו״קטנה״?
Isn’t it written:
“And the Arameans had gone out in bands,
and had brought away captive from Eretz Yisrael a minor young woman [na’ara ketana]” (II Kings 5:2),
and this verse raised a difficulty to us:
“A minor”
and “a young woman”;
how could she be both of these?
ואמר רבי פדת:
קטנה דמן נעורן
And R’ Pedat says
it means a minor girl from the town of Ne’oran.
This verse concerning the lads can be explained in a similar manner: They were young children from Ne’oran.
התם
לא מפרש מקומה,
הכא
מפורש מקומן
The Talmud answers: These two cases are not comparable:
There
the verse does not specify her place of origin,
so “na’ara” could mean from the town of Ne’oran;
but here
the verse specifies their place of origin,
namely Jericho.
“And he turned behind him and saw them, and he cursed them in the name of YHWH” (II Kings 2:24) - What did Elisha see?
״ויפן אחריו ויראם
ויקללם בשם ה׳״.
מה ראה?
The verse further states with regard to the same incident: “And he turned behind him and saw them,
and he cursed them in the name of YHWH” (II Kings 2:24).
The Talmud asks: What did he see?
There are four explanations offered (in the ensuing section).
Rav - Elisha “saw” the youths by fixing his gaze (=gave evil eye)
אמר רב:
ראה ממש
Rav says:
He literally saw,
i.e., he stared and bored his eyes into them (giving them the evil eye)
Rabban Shimon ben Gamliel - General principle: wherever the sages “set their eyes” (=give evil eye), the outcome is either death or poverty
כדתניא,
רבן שמעון בן גמליאל אומר:
כל מקום שנתנו חכמים עיניהם —
או מיתה,
או עוני
as it is taught in a baraita:
Rabban Shimon ben Gamliel says:
Wherever it states that the Sages placed their eyes upon a certain person --
they brought upon that person either
death
or poverty (עוני)
Shmuel - Elisha saw that all their mothers had conceived them on Yom Kippur (when sex is forbidden)
ושמואל אמר:
ראה שכולן נתעברה בהן אמן ביום הכיפורים.
And Shmuel says:
He saw their essential nature, that all their mothers became pregnant with them on Yom Kippur, when sex is forbidden.3
R’ Yitzḥak Nappaḥa - Elisha saw that they wore a blorit (plaited hair) like non-Jews
ורבי יצחק נפחא אמר:
בלורית ראה להן, כגויים.
And R’ Yitzḥak Nappaḥa says:
He saw that they had plaited locks4 grown on the back of their heads like the non-Jews.
R’ Yoḥanan - Elisha saw that they had no “moisture of mitzva” at all
ורבי יוחנן אמר:
ראה שלא היתה בהן לחלוחית של מצוה.
And R’ Yoḥanan says:
He saw that they did not contain even a smidgen5 of a mitzva.
R’ Elazar - Elisha perceived that mitzvot would be absent not only in them but in their descendants for all generations
ודלמא בזרעייהו ניהוה הוה?
אמר רבי אלעזר:
לא בם
ולא בזרעם
עד סוף כל הדורות.
The Talmud raises an objection to this last interpretation of R’ Yoḥanan: But how could he curse them just because they did not have any mitzvot? Perhaps their descendants would have many mitzvot.
R’ Elazar says:
He saw that mitzvot would be found neither in them
nor in their descendants,
through all generations.
Rav and Shmuel - One holds there was a single miracle (bears created, forest pre-existing); the other holds there was a double miracle (both forest and bears created) - II Kings 2:24
״ותצאנה שתים דבים מן היער
ותבקענה מהם ארבעים ושני ילדים״,
רב ושמואל,
חד אמר:
נס.
וחד אמר:
נס בתוך נס.
The verse states: “And 2 she-bears came out of the forest
and tore 42 children from them” (II Kings 2:24).
Rav and Shmuel had a dispute with regard to this episode:
One says
there was a miracle,
and one says
there was a miracle within a miracle.
מאן דאמר נס —
יער הוה,
דובים לא הוו.
מאן דאמר נס בתוך נס —
לא יער הוה
ולא דובים הוו
[…]
The Talmud explains:
The one who says there was a miracle claims that
there was already a forest in that place
but there were no bears,
and the miracle was the appearance of bears.
The one who says it was a miracle within a miracle claims that
neither was there a forest
nor were there bears in that area6
[…]
R’ Ḥanina
אמר רבי חנינא:
בשביל ארבעים ושנים קרבנות שהקריב בלק מלך מואב
הובקעו מישראל ארבעים ושנים ילדים.
R’ Ḥanina says:
Due to 42 offerings that Balak, king of Moab, brought7 when he tried to have Balaam curse the Jewish people,
42 children were broken off from Israel, in that incident involving Elisha.
איני?
The Talmud asks: Is that so?
Was that the reward for his offerings?
Rav Yehuda citing Rav - One should always engage in Torah and mitzvot even not for their own sake
והאמר רב יהודה, אמר רב:
לעולם יעסוק אדם בתורה ובמצות,
ואף על פי שלא לשמה.
שמתוך שלא לשמה —
בא לשמה.
But didn’t Rav Yehuda say that Rav says:
A person should always engage in Torah study and in performance of mitzvot,
even if he does so not for their own sake,
as through such acts performed not for their own sake --
one will come to perform them for their own sake.
Prooftext - Balak’s 42 offerings, though aimed at cursing Israel, merited him Ruth and ultimately Solomon, who brought 1,000 burnt-offerings - I Kings 3:4
שבשכר ארבעים ושנים קרבנות שהקריב בלק מלך מואב,
זכה ויצתה ממנו רות
שיצא ממנה שלמה,
שכתוב ביה:
״אלף עלות יעלה שלמה״.
He proves the value of a mitzva done not for its own sake:
As in reward for the 42 offerings that Balak, king of Moab, brought --
he merited that Ruth descended from him,
from whom King Solomon descended,
about whom it is written that he brought many offerings:
“1,000 burnt-offerings did Solomon offer up” (I Kings 3:4).
R’ Yosei ben Ḥoni - Identifies Ruth as daughter of Eglon, son of Balak, linking Moabite royal lineage to Israelite kingship
ואמר רבי יוסי בן חוני:
רות בתו של עגלון בנו של בלק היתה
And R’ Yosei ben Ḥoni similarly says:
Ruth was the daughter of Eglon, son of Balak.
תאותו מיהא לקללה הוי.
These Sages state that Balak’s reward was to have Ruth descend from him, not that a number of Jewish people perish.
The Talmud answers: His desire, in any event, was to curse the Jewish people,
and his reward for sacrificing his offerings was that the curse was fulfilled in the incident involving Elisha, as well.
R’ Ḥanin - Explains how the city can be “pleasant” despite bad water and miscarrying land: people are attached to their place; “the grace of a place is upon its inhabitants” - II Kings 2:19
״ויאמרו אנשי העיר אל אלישע:
הנה נא מושב העיר טוב
כאשר אדני ראה וגו׳״.
וכי מאחר ד
מים רעים
וארץ משכלת,
אלא מה טובתה?!
אמר רבי חנין:
חן מקום על יושביו
The Talmud returns to discussing the incident involving Elisha: “And the men of the city said to Elisha:
Behold, please, the situation of this city is pleasant,
as my lord sees, but the water is bad and the land miscarries” (II Kings 2:19).
The Talmud asks: But if
the water is bad
and the land causes women to miscarry (משכלת)
what is pleasant about it?!
R’ Ḥanin says:
The grace (חן) of a place is upon its inhabitants,
i.e., people are fond of their hometown despite its shortcomings.
R’ Yoḥanan Lists 3 forms of “grace”: of a place on its inhabitants, of a woman on her husband, and of a purchase on its buyer - II Kings 2:19
אמר רבי יוחנן,
שלשה חינות הן:
חן מקום על יושביו,
חן אשה על בעלה,
חן מקח על (מקחו).
R’ Yoḥanan says:
There are three graces (חינות) that have a similar impact:
The grace of a place upon its inhabitants;
the grace of a woman upon her husband, despite her faults;
and the grace of a purchased item upon its buyer8
On making fun of someone for being bald, compare my “From Eunuch-ville to Bald-town: A Eunuch and R’ Yehoshua the Bald Trade Insults Over Physical Shortcomings (Shabbat 152a)”.
הקרחת.
Compare this same idiomatic usage of this word in my “Talmudic Interpretations of the Book of Esther: Esther 3:8-3:11 (Megillah 13b-14a)“, section “Dismissing Concerns About Population Loss: Haman - the Jews are scattered among other peoples, so their eradication will not leave any noticeable unpopulated area“:
שמא תאמר:
קרחה אני עושה במלכותך
Haman continued with his next response as expressed in the verse:
Perhaps you will say that
I am making a “bald spot” (קרחה) in your kingdom,
i.e., you fear that if an entire nation is wiped out there will be a desolate area within the kingdom.
For sex on Yom Kippur as the quintessential sin in the Talmud, compare my ‘ “Today is Yom Kippur, and several virgins had sex in Neharde’a”: Anecdotes of Sinning on Yom Kippur (Yoma 19b-20a)”.
בלורית.
On this word, see my note on “Kalenda, Saturnalia, and the First Winter: Pagan Festivals, Adam’s Cosmic Anxiety, and Rome’s Rise (Avodah Zarah 8a-b)“, section “Mishnah (Avodah Zarah 1:3)”, sub-section “The Rabbis - Distinguish death commemorations: if there is ritual burning, it involves idol worship; if not, it does not“, citing Jastrow.
לחלוחית - literally: “moisture”.
On this word, see Jastrow (modernized):
לִחְלוּחִית
same, moisture, juice; vitality.
Bereishit Rabbah 48:16 - זקנה שיש בה לחלוחית (Arukh לכלוכית) - “old age combined with vitality”
Bereishit Rabbah 61, beginning: (referring to יונקתו, Job 14:7) - זו לחלוחית שלו - “that means his vitality”
Sanhedrin 49a:8 - עדיין לחלוחית של וכ׳ - “David was yet in full vigor”
Sanhedrin 92b:8 (referring to Ezekiel 37:4; Ezekiel 37:11) - “ ‘dry bones’ are men שאין בהם לחלוחית של מצוה - “in whom there is no sap of good deeds”
and elsewhere
On the example in Sanhedrin 92b (where the idiomatic expression is exactly the same as here in our sugya), see my “Actual Resurrection or Allegory? The Valley of Dry Bones in Ezekiel 37 in the Talmud (Sanhedrin 92b)“, section “R’ Yirmeya bar Abba: people devoid of mitzva merit (Ezekiel 37:4)“.
The Talmud asks on this interpretation, Sotah.47a.1
וליהוי דובים ולא ליהוי יער!
דבעיתי.
The Talmud asks with regard to the second opinion: Why was a double miracle required?
And let there be bears and no forest;
the forest served no role in the story, so why was it created?
The Talmud explains: The forest was necessary, as bears are frightened to venture into open areas but will attack people in their natural habitat, a forest.
In the Balaam/Balak narrative, the “42 offerings” is the total across three rounds of sacrifices in Numbers 23, specifically verses 1–2; 14–15; 29–30, from which the sum 42 is derived:
Numbers 23:1–2 — “Build me here 7 altars… and prepare me here 7 bulls and 7 rams… and Balak and Balaam offered on each altar a bull and a ram.”
→ 7 altars × (bull + ram) = 14 offerings
Numbers 23:14–15 — again: “Build me here 7 altars, and prepare me here 7 bulls and 7 rams.”
(context continues the same sacrificial setup)→ another 14
Numbers 23:29–30 — again: “Build me here 7 altars… and prepare me here 7 bulls and 7 rams… and offered a bull and a ram on each altar.”
→ another 14
Total: 7*6 = 42 offerings.
(Compare Torah Temimah, Numbers 23:29.1, f. 20.)
Ed. Steinsaltz explains:
as one who has bought something views it in a positive light.
Compare the “endowment effect” in behavioral economics and cognitive psychology, referring to the tendency for people to assign greater value to things merely because they own them