Pt1 Sabbatical Year Violations, the Conspiracy of Shebna Against Hezekiah in Isaiah 22, and Interpretations of Torah Study (Sanhedrin 26a-b)

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

This sugya begins with a dispute over suspected violations of the Sabbatical Year (shemitta) and the qualifications of rabbis responsible for intercalating the calendar. It then turns to an extended aggadic interpretation of the biblical account of Shebna (late 8th century BCE), a high-ranking official in King Hezekiah’s court, during the Assyrian siege of Jerusalem. The final section develops interpretations of biblical verses concerning the foundations of the world, the significance of Torah study, and the effects of anxiety on intellectual activity.

The transition between these subjects is based on the principle that a conspiracy of wicked people is not counted (קשר רשעים אינו מן המנין). This principle first appears in the dispute over rabbinic authority and is subsequently explained through the story of Shebna and Hezekiah.

Sabbatical Year Violations and Rabbinic Authority

The sugya opens with R’ Ḥiyya bar Zarnokei and R’ Shimon ben Yehotzadak traveling to Asia (Minor) to intercalate the year. (Intercalation involved adding an extra month to the Jewish calendar to maintain its alignment with the agricultural seasons and festivals.) Reish Lakish encounters the two rabbis and accompanies them, intending to observe how they carry out the procedure.¹

During their journey, Reish Lakish encounters two individuals performing agricultural labor during the Sabbatical Year. The first is a man plowing a field. Reish Lakish assumes that he is violating the prohibition against agricultural work during shemitta. The other rabbis suggest a possible justification: the man might be a hired worker (agiston, a Latin loanword) working land belonging to a non-Jew, in which case the activity would be permitted.

The second case concerns a man pruning vines. Again, Reish Lakish assumes that the activity is prohibited. His companions suggest that the man might be collecting branches to construct a basket or bale (ekel) used in an olive press. Since his purpose would be to obtain the branches rather than cultivate the vines, the activity would be permitted. Reish Lakish responds with a wordplay: “The heart knows whether it is for an ekel or for deceit (la’akalkalot).” His objection concerns the possibility that an apparently legitimate explanation conceals an actual violation.

The disagreement concerns how to evaluate conduct that appears prohibited but might have a permissible explanation. R’ Ḥiyya bar Zarnokei and R’ Shimon ben Yehotzadak offer hypothetical grounds for permitting the activity, while Reish Lakish questions whether these explanations reflect the workers’ actual intentions.

The two rabbis become frustrated with Reish Lakish and call him a nuisance. Upon reaching their destination, they climb onto a roof and remove the ladder, preventing him from joining their intercalation proceedings.

Reish Lakish subsequently approaches R’ Yoḥanan and questions whether individuals suspected of disregarding Sabbatical Year prohibitions are qualified to intercalate the year. Reish Lakish initially considers a precedent involving three cattle herders whose seasonal observations informed an earlier intercalation. In that case, however, the final decision was made by qualified rabbis who independently evaluated the information. Reish Lakish therefore rejects the comparison. He characterizes the present group as a conspiracy of wicked people, declaring that such a group cannot be counted toward a legitimate decision. R’ Yoḥanan acknowledges the seriousness of the objection.

When the two rabbis later complain that Reish Lakish compared them to cattle herders, R’ Yoḥanan dismisses their complaint, suggesting that even a comparison to shepherds—who are disqualified from serving as witnesses and judges—would have been justified.

The episode thus connects the observance of agricultural law with the qualifications required for participation in authoritative rabbinic proceedings.

Shebna, Hezekiah, and the Conspiracy of the Wicked

The Talmud next explains the principle that a conspiracy of wicked people is excluded from the count through an aggadic account of Shebna, an influential official in the court of King Hezekiah. The historical setting is the Assyrian invasion of Judah under Sennacherib in the late eighth century BCE, culminating in the siege of Jerusalem. The biblical books of Kings and Isaiah describe this crisis and the political and religious figures involved.

According to the Talmud, Shebna and Hezekiah each commanded large audiences of Torah students. Shebna taught 130,000 followers, while Hezekiah taught 110,000. Shebna therefore possessed a numerical majority. When Sennacherib besieged Jerusalem, Shebna secretly attempted to negotiate surrender. He wrote a note declaring that he and his faction had submitted to the Assyrians, while Hezekiah and his followers had refused. He attached the note to an arrow and shot it over the city wall. The Talmud associates this act with Psalms 11:2, which describes wicked people preparing their bows and arrows.

Hezekiah fears that God might follow the majority and deliver Jerusalem into Assyrian hands, since Shebna’s faction outnumbers his own. Isaiah reassures him through Isaiah 8:12, which refers to a conspiracy (kesher). The Talmud interprets the verse as establishing that a conspiracy of wicked people does not constitute a legitimate majority, regardless of its numerical strength.

This interpretation supplies the biblical basis for Reish Lakish’s earlier objection. A group’s numerical majority is insufficient when its members are disqualified by their conduct.

Shebna’s Ambition, Punishment, and Humiliation

The Talmud continues with an extended interpretation of Isaiah 22:15–18, a prophecy directed against Shebna, the official responsible for the royal household. According to the sugya, Shebna expected to acquire royal authority and prepared an elaborate burial place for himself among the tombs of the Davidic dynasty. Isaiah condemns this presumption, asking what right Shebna has to carve out a tomb in such a prestigious location. The prophecy announces that YHWH will forcibly remove and disgrace him.

Several rabbis derive additional details about Shebna’s punishment from the wording of the verses. Rav interprets the phrase describing Shebna’s wandering “like the wandering of a man” as indicating that displacement is more difficult for a man than for a woman. R’ Yosei ben Ḥanina derives that Shebna developed tzara’at. He connects the verb describing Shebna’s being wrapped or covered in Isaiah 22:17 with the requirement that a metzora cover his upper lip in Leviticus 13:45.

A baraita states that Shebna attempted to disgrace his master’s household and was therefore himself subjected to disgrace. His punishment corresponds to his intended offense.

The sugya then describes the failure of Shebna’s attempted surrender. When Shebna leaves Jerusalem to meet the Assyrians, the angel Gabriel prevents his followers from accompanying him by holding the city gate shut. Shebna consequently arrives alone. The Assyrians demand to know where his promised supporters are. When he explains that they abandoned him, they accuse him of deceiving them. They then pierce his heels, attach him to the tails of horses, and drag him across thorns and brambles.

The account concludes with R’ Elazar’s characterization of Shebna as a (sexual) hedonist (ba’al hana’ah). This interpretation is derived from a verbal parallel between the word sokhen, describing Shebna’s position as steward in Isaiah 22:15, and sokhenet, describing Abishag‘s role as King David’s sexual companion in I Kings 1:2.

The various interpretations portray Shebna as politically disloyal, personally ambitious, and morally corrupt. His numerical superiority over Hezekiah ultimately provides him with neither legitimacy nor protection.

The Destruction of the Foundations: Hezekiah, the Temple, and Sennacherib

The discussion then returns to Psalm 11, moving from verse 2, which describes the wicked preparing their arrows, to verse 3: “When the foundations are destroyed, what has the Righteous One done?” The Talmud presents three interpretations of this verse.

Rav Yehuda and Rav Eina offer two possibilities, although the passage does not specify which interpretation belongs to which rabbi. According to one interpretation, the verse asks what God would have accomplished if Hezekiah and his righteous followers had been destroyed. According to the other, it asks what God would have accomplished if the Temple had been destroyed. Ulla proposes a third interpretation: the verse refers to the destruction of Sennacherib’s wicked plans. If those plans had not been frustrated, what would God have accomplished?

The Talmud then examines the meaning of the Hebrew word shatot, translated as “foundations,” and how it can support these interpretations. The identification of the foundations with the Temple is supported by the Mishnah in Yoma 53b, which describes the Foundation Stone (even shetiyya) located in the Holy of Holies.

The identification of righteous people with foundations requires further explanation. The Talmud cites I Samuel 2:8, which describes the pillars of the earth upon which God established the world. These pillars are interpreted as referring to righteous people who sustain the world. An alternative derivation comes from Isaiah 28:29, which praises God’s counsel and wisdom, using the word tushiyya.

This reference introduces the final part of the sugya, which develops several interpretations of tushiyya as a designation for Torah.

Three Interpretations of Tushiyya: Torah Study and the Foundations of the World

R’ Ḥanan asks why the Torah is called tushiyya and presents three explanations. The first connects the word with the verb meaning “to weaken” (matteshet). Torah study is called tushiyya because it weakens the physical strength of those who engage in it.

The second explanation interprets the word as an abbreviation for she-nittena be-ḥashai, meaning “that it was given in secret.” According to this interpretation, the Torah was given secretly because of Satan, who might otherwise have challenged Israel’s worthiness to receive it.

The third explanation divides the word into elements associated with tohu, meaning disorder or apparent absurdity, and meshotat, meaning founded or established. Torah consists of matters that may appear strange or incomprehensible, yet upon them the world is founded.

These three explanations concern different aspects of Torah: the physical demands of its study, the circumstances of its divine transmission, and its foundational significance for the world. The third interpretation also connects back to the preceding discussion of righteous people as the foundations of the earth.

Anxiety, Distraction, and Torah Study for Its Own Sake

The sugya concludes with two statements concerning the effects of anxiety and distracting thoughts on Torah study.

Ulla states that troubling thoughts can interfere even with the study of Torah. He supports this claim with Job 5:12, which describes God frustrating the plans of the crafty so that their hands cannot accomplish tushiyya. The interpretation depends on identifying tushiyya in this verse with Torah. The verse is consequently read as indicating that mental disturbances can obstruct Torah study.

Rabba qualifies Ulla’s statement. He maintains that when people study Torah li-shma, for its own sake, distracting thoughts cannot interfere with their study. His prooftext is Proverbs 19:21: “There are many thoughts in a man’s heart, but the counsel of YHWH shall stand.”

Rabba interprets the enduring divine counsel as referring to study that contains God’s word. Such study, when undertaken li-shma, remains effective despite competing thoughts and concerns.

The concluding disagreement distinguishes between the ordinary vulnerability of intellectual activity to anxiety and the special protection attributed to Torah study undertaken with the proper intention.

The sugya’s progression is thus driven primarily by successive scriptural interpretations and verbal associations. Its initial legal discussion establishes the principle concerning a wicked majority; the Shebna narrative supplies its biblical illustration; and the interpretation of Psalm 11 leads into a broader discussion of the foundations of the world and the nature of Torah study.

Isaiah 22:15-18

Isaiah 22:15-18:

כה אמר אדני יהוה צבאות:

לך בא אל הסכן הזה

על שבנא אשר על הבית

Thus says YHWH God of hosts:

Go, get you to this steward,

to Shevna who is over the house.

מה לך פה ומי לך פה

כי חצבת לך פה קבר

חצבי מרום קברו

חקקי בסלע משכן לו

[Say to him:] What have you here, and whom have you here,

that you have hewn you out a tomb here,

hewing out a tomb on high,

carving a habitation for himself in a rock?

הנה יהוה מטלטלך טלטלה גבר

ועטך עטה

Behold, YHWH will thrust you about with a mighty throw,

and will seize you firmly.

Outline

Intro

1. Sabbatical Year Violations and Rabbinic Authority

2. Shebna, Hezekiah, and the Conspiracy of the Wicked

3. Shebna’s Ambition, Punishment, and Humiliation

4. The Destruction of the Foundations: Hezekiah, the Temple, and Sennacherib

5. Three Interpretations of Tushiyya: Torah Study and the Foundations of the World

6. Anxiety, Distraction, and Torah Study for Its Own Sake

Isaiah 22:15-18

The Passage

1. Reish Lakish criticizes a man plowing during the Sabbatical Year, assuming he is violating its laws

2. R’ Ḥiyya b. Zarnokei and R’ Shimon b. Yehotzadak defend the plower: He may be a hired worker working a non-Jew’s field

3. Reish Lakish criticizes a man pruning vines during the Sabbatical Year

4. R’ Ḥiyya b. Zarnokei and R’ Shimon b. Yehotzadak defend the pruner: He may need the branches to make a basket for an olive press

5. Reish Lakish responds that only the man’s heart knows whether his explanation is genuine or deceitful

6. R’ Ḥiyya b. Zarnokei and R’ Shimon b. Yehotzadak call Reish Lakish a nuisance, and remove a ladder to prevent him from joining their intercalation proceedings

7. Reish Lakish questions whether people suspected of violating Sabbatical Year laws are qualified to intercalate the year

8. Initially compares them to three cattle herders whose calculations informed an intercalation

9. Reish Lakish then rejects the comparison: In the cattle-herder case, qualified rabbis ultimately made the decision, while here, the participants constitute a conspiracy of wicked people, which cannot be counted

10. R’ Yoḥanan acknowledges that Reish Lakish’s objection is troubling

11. Later the two rabbis complain that Reish Lakish compared them to cattle herders

12. R’ Yoḥanan dismisses the complaint, suggesting that even a comparison to shepherds would be justified

Part 2

1. Shebna had 130,000 followers, compared with Hezekiah’s 110,000

2. Shebna secretly offered to surrender to Sennacherib

   1. Prooftext - Psalms 11:2

3. Hezekiah fears that God might follow the majority supporting surrender to Assyria

4. Isaiah reassures Hezekiah that a conspiracy of wicked people is not counted as a legitimate majority - Isaiah 8:12

5. Shebna’s attempt to prepare a royal burial place among the graves of the house of David, and Isaiah’s prophecy of his punishment - Isaiah 22:16–17

6. Rav - A man’s wandering is more difficult than a woman’s - Isaiah 22:17

7. R’ Yosei b. Ḥanina - Derives that Shebna developed tzara’at through a verbal parallel between Isaiah’s prophecy and the law of the metzora - Isaiah 22:17; Leviticus 13:45

8. Baraita - Shebna sought to disgrace his master’s house, so his own glory became disgrace - Isaiah 22:18

9. Gabriel prevented Shebna’s followers from accompanying him to the Assyrians

10. The Assyrians consequently humiliated and killed Shebna

11. R’ Elazar - Shebna was a hedonist, inferred through the shared Hebrew root of sokhen (steward) and sokhenet (female companion) - Isaiah 22:15; I Kings 1:2

12. Rav Yehuda / Rav Eina - Interprets the destruction of the “foundations” as either the potential destruction of Hezekiah and his followers, or of the (First) Temple - Psalms 11:3; I Samuel 2:8; Isaiah 28:29

13. Ulla - Interprets the verse as asking what God would have accomplished if Sennacherib’s wicked plans had not been destroyed - Psalms 11:3

14. Mishnah (Yoma 53b) - The Temple’s Foundation Stone (even shetiyya) explains the identification of the “foundations” with the Temple

15. The Talmud explains the identification of righteous people with “foundations” through verses describing the pillars of the earth and divine wisdom - I Samuel 2:8; Isaiah 28:29

16. Three explanations of the term tushiyya (Torah): (1) Torah study weakens a person’s physical strength; (2) Torah was given secretly because of Satan; (3) Torah consists of seemingly strange matters upon which the world is founded - Isaiah 28:29

17. Ulla - Anxiety and distracting thoughts can interfere even with Torah study - Job 5:12

18. Rabba - Anxiety cannot disrupt Torah study undertaken for its own sake (li-shma), because counsel containing God’s word endures - Proverbs 19:21

The Passage

Sanhedrin/26a#8 thru 26b#10

Reish Lakish criticizes a man plowing during the Sabbatical Year, assuming he is violating its laws

• רבי חייא בר זרנוקי

• ורבי שמעון בן יהוצדק

הוו קאזלי לעבר שנה בעסיא.

§ The Talmud recounts an incident connected tangentially to the discussion concerning the Sabbatical Year:

• R’ Ḥiyya bar Zarnokei

• and R’ Shimon ben Yehotzadak

were going to intercalate (לעבר) the year in Asya,

as circumstances did not enable them to perform the intercalation of the year in Eretz Yisrael.

פגע בהו ריש לקיש,

איטפל בהדייהו.

אמר:

איזיל איחזי היכי עבדי עובדא.

Reish Lakish met² them

and joined (איטפל) with them.

He said:

I will go see how they do the deed,

i.e., how the intercalation is performed practically.

חזייה לההוא גברא דקא כריב.

אמר להן:

כהן וחורש!

Reish Lakish saw a certain man plowing a field.

He said to the other rabbis:

Look at this priest who is plowing during the Sabbatical Year.

R’ Ḥiyya bar Zarnokei and R’ Shimon ben Yehotzadak defend the plower: He may be a hired worker working a non-Jew’s field

אמרו לו:

יכול לומר:

״אגיסטון אני בתוכו״.

They said to him that

he could say in his own defense:

I am a hired worker³ in the field, which belongs to a non-Jew.

Therefore, it is permitted.

Reish Lakish criticizes a man pruning vines during the Sabbatical Year

תו חזייה לההוא גברא דהוה כסח בכרמי.

אמר להן:

כהן וזמר!

Reish Lakish further saw a certain man pruning (כסח) vines in the vineyards.

He said to the other rabbis:

Look at this priest who is pruning vines during the Sabbatical Year.

R’ Ḥiyya bar Zarnokei and R’ Shimon ben Yehotzadak defend the pruner: He may need the branches to make a basket for an olive press

אמרו לו:

יכול לומר

״לעקל בית הבד אני צריך״.

They said to him that

he could say:

I need the branches to make a bale [ekel] for my olive press⁴

Reish Lakish responds that only the man’s heart knows whether his explanation is genuine or deceitful

אמר להם:

הלב יודע

• אם לעקל

• אם לעקלקלות.

[...]

Reish Lakish said to them, in a play on words:

The heart knows whether he is doing so

• for a bale [ekel ],

• or whether he is saying this as deceit [la’akalkalot].

[...]

R’ Ḥiyya b. Zarnokei and R’ Shimon b. Yehotzadak call Reish Lakish a nuisance, and remove a ladder to prevent him from joining their intercalation proceedings

אמרו:

טרודא הוא דין.

כי מטו להתם,

סליקו לאיגרא,

שלפוה לדרגא מתותיה.

After Reish Lakish continually bothered them with his comments, R’ Ḥiyya bar Zarnokei and R’ Shimon ben Yehotzadak said:

This one [=Reish Lakish] is a nuisance (טרודא).

In order to rid themselves of him, when they reached the location where they intended to intercalate the year,

they went up to the roof

and took the ladder out from under them

so that Reish Lakish would stay below, and would not be able to join them.

Reish Lakish questions whether people suspected of violating Sabbatical Year laws are qualified to intercalate the year

אתא לקמיה דרבי יוחנן.

אמר ליה:

בני אדם החשודין על השביעית —

כשרין לעבר שנה?

Sometime later, Reish Lakish came before R’ Yoḥanan.

Reish Lakish said to him:

people who are suspected of desecrating the Sabbatical Year —

are they fit to intercalate the year?⁵

Initially compares them to three cattle herders whose calculations informed an intercalation

הדר אמר:

לא קשיא לי,

מידי דהוה אשלשה רועי בקר,

ורבנן אחושבנייהו סמוך.

Reish Lakish then said in response to his own question:

This is not difficult for me;

just as the rabbis once intercalated the year in accordance with the assessment of 3 cattle herders⁶ (see Sanhedrin 18b), which was permitted,

as the rabbis depended not on the assessment of the cattle herders but on their own calculation⁷

Reish Lakish then rejects the comparison: In the cattle-herder case, qualified rabbis ultimately made the decision, while here, the participants constitute a conspiracy of wicked people, which cannot be counted

והדר אמר:

לא דמי.

• התם,

  • הדור אימנו רבנן ועברוה לההוא שתא.

• הכא,

  • קשר רשעים הוא, וקשר רשעים אינו מן המנין.

Reish Lakish changed his mind and then said:

It is not similar:

• There, in the case of the cattle herders,

  • afterward the rabbis were counted, i.e., they made a decision, and intercalated that year themselves.

• Here, by contrast,

  • it is a conspiracy (קשר) of wicked people, as the rabbis who intercalated the year are disqualified from doing so; and a conspiracy of wicked people is not counted.

R’ Yoḥanan acknowledges that Reish Lakish’s objection is troubling

אמר רבי יוחנן:

דא עקא.

R’ Yoḥanan said:

This problem you raise is troublesome (עקא).

Later the two rabbis complain that Reish Lakish compared them to cattle herders

כי אתו לקמיה דרבי יוחנן,

אמרו ליה:

קרי לן ״רועי בקר״,

ולא אמר ליה מר ולא מידי?!

When R’ Ḥiyya bar Zarnokei and R’ Shimon ben Yehotzadak subsequently came before R’ Yoḥanan, after hearing about his discussion with Reish Lakish,

they said to him bitterly: Reish Lakish referred to us as cattle herders,

and the Master said nothing to him in response?!

R’ Yoḥanan dismisses the complaint, suggesting that even a comparison to shepherds would be justified

אמר להו:

ואי קרי לכו ״רועי צאן״,

מאי אמינא ליה?!

R’ Yoḥanan said to them dismissively:

And even if he had referred to you as shepherds (רועי צאן), who are disqualified from bearing witness in addition to being disqualified from serving as judges,

what should I have said to him?!

Reish Lakish is correct.

1. For general background to the story, see Hebrew Wikipedia, “ריש לקיש“, section “תולדות חייו“ (my translation):

In the Talmud, [Reish Lakish] is portrayed as a fearless and courageous man. In one incident, he pursued a group of robbers who had abducted R’ Ami and rescued him. In another, he pursued bandits who had stolen money from R’ Yoḥanan and succeeded in recovering all the stolen property.

At times, he directed his sharp tongue against other rabbis, as when he called R’ Ḥiyya b. Zarnuki and Rabbi Shimon b. Yehotzadak “cattle herders,” or when he exclaimed incredulously about R’ Elazar b. Pedat, “Is this the man they say is a great scholar?!”

2. פגע

I.e., by chance, in informal English: “bumped into them”.

3. agiston - from Latin.

On this word, see Jastrow (modernized), entry “*אָגוּסְטָאן, אָגוּסְטְיָין”:

masculine

(Augustanus, Augustianus) a servant in a colonia Augustana,

(perhaps identical with Curialis or Decurio; compare Gibbon, ed. Milman 2, 142 and following, American ed.

• Sanhedrin 26a:9 - יכול לומר … טאן וכ׳ Manuscript Munich (Manuscript C. and Florence: יסטוון … printed edition: אגיסטון, אגיסטין, correct reading: אגוסטיין) “he may say (as an excuse for tilling in the Sabbath year), I am merely an imperial servant in the estate.”

4. Steinsaltz:

i.e., a basket to hold olives for pressing. Since he is not pruning the vines for agricultural purposes but to use the branches, it is permitted for him to do so in the Sabbatical Year.

5. Steinsaltz:

Reish Lakish believed that the two rabbis [=R’ Ḥiyya b. Zarnokei and R’ Shimon b. Yehotzadak] who were sent to intercalate the year treated the sanctity of the Sabbatical Year with disrespect.

6. רועי בקר

For a general discussion, see Zilbershtein:

ירון זילברשטיין, רועי בקר בהליך עיבור השנה וכדיינים: פרק נשכח במאבק על ההגמוניה השיפטית הפנים-יהודית בתקופת חז”ל, מאזני משפט ח (תשע”ג), עמ’ 217–236

7. Steinsaltz:

perhaps here too, the rabbis depended on their own calculations, and not on the decision of R’ Ḥiyya bar Zarnokei and R’ Shimon ben Yehotzadak.