Pt1 ‘Whoever says that [X] sinned is mistaken’: Reinterpretations of Sins In Defense of the Biblical Righteous (Shabbat 55b-56a)
Reuben and Bilhah; Eli’s Sons - Hophni and Pinehas; Samuel’s Sons; David and Bathsheba
This is the first part of a two-part series. The outline of the series is below.
This sugya assembles a series of reinterpretations aimed at exonerating major biblical figures—Reuben, the sons of Eli, the sons of Samuel, and David—from apparent sins reported in the Bible.1 The dominant voice is that of R' Shmuel bar Naḥmani in the name of R' Yonatan, who systematically recasts their transgressions as either misunderstandings, exaggerations, or symbolic attributions. In each case, the plain reading of the biblical narrative is challenged or reinterpreted to preserve the righteousness of Israel’s key leaders.
Through the repeated declaration—kol ha’omer [X] ḥata, eino ela to’eh (‘whoever says that [X] sinned is mistaken’)—R’ Shmuel bar Naḥmani in the name of R’ Yonatan reframe transgressions attributed to figures like Reuven, the sons of Eli and Shmuel, and King David. Each case follows a similar structure: the biblical verse that implies sin is first neutralized by a different verse that affirms righteousness. The problematic passage is then reinterpreted—either metaphorically or midrashically—as reflecting a lesser fault (e.g. negligence, misplaced zeal, or symbolic liability) rather than actual wrongdoing. The sin becomes allegory.
The sugya is also notable for its use of homiletic techniques such as notarikon (interpreting words as acronyms), hyper-literal reading (al tikri), and appeals to ethical implausibility (e.g. ‘Would Reuven's descendants curse him if he had really sinned?!’). In effect, the Talmud creates a framework where reputational innocence overrides textual plain meaning.
Underlying this project is a theology of character—where the biblical righteous are insulated from sin not just through behavior but by rabbinic reframing.
The formula
The same formula appears four times in this sugya:
R' Shmuel bar Naḥmani said [that] R' Yonatan said:
Whoever says2 [that] [X - Biblical figure] sinned (חטא) --
is mistaken,3
as it is stated:
[Y - biblical verse]
[Z - inference from the verse that here was no sin]
How then do I establish4 [the meaning of the verse]: [Y2- biblical verse, where the plain understanding of the verse indicates sin.]
[This verse] teaches that (מלמד ש)
[A - reinterpretation of the verse, to mean that there was no sin]
Outline
Intro
The Passage - ‘Whoever says that [X] sinned is mistaken’: Reinterpretations of Sins In Defense of the Biblical Righteous (Shabbat 55b-56a)
Part 1: Reuben and Bilhah (Genesis 35, 49)
R' Shmuel bar Naḥmani in the name of R' Yonatan - Reuben did not have sex with Bilhah - “The sons of Jacob were twelve” (Genesis 35:22) implies all were equal
...Reuben merely rearranged the bed
R' Shimon ben Elazar - Reuben did not sin - His descendants later pronounce a curse on that act (Deut 27:20)
...he merely protested on behalf of his mother Leah, against Bilhah and Rachel (Genesis 30:3-8)
Aḥerim (“Others”) - Reuben disturbed both his father’s and the Shekhina’s bed - “You defiled my bed” (Gen 49:4) should be read in the plural: "my beds"
R' Eliezer/R' Yehoshua - Reuben sinned; Rabban Gamliel / R' Elazar HaModa’i - Reuben repented, not sinned ; Rava / R' Yirmeya bar Abba - Reuben avoided sin; all of them interpreting the word ‘paḥaz’ (פחז - “unstable”) as an acronym
Part 2: Eli’s Sons - Hophni and Pinehas (1 Samuel 1-2)
R' Shmuel bar Naḥmani citing R' Yonatan - The sons of Eli (עלי) did not have sex with the women - “Hophni and Pinehas were priests to YHWH” (1 Sam 1:3) implies they were righteous
Rav - Pinehas did not sin
...“They lay with the women” means they delayed their sacrifices - Delay in offerings led to ritual impurity, likened rhetorically to sexual sin
Pinehas’ descendant Ahijah is called “YHWH’s priest” (1 Sam 14:3), which would not be said if Pinehas had sinned
Only Hophni sinned; Any plural references to both sons sinning are reinterpreted as singular or metaphorical; Pinehas is only faulted for failing to protest Hophni’s behavior (I Samuel 2:12, 24)
Part 3: Samuel’s Sons (1 Samuel 8)
R' Shmuel bar Naḥmani citing R' Yonatan - Samuel’s sons did not sin - “They did not walk in his ways” (1 Sam 8:3) = they were not like their father, not that they were sinners
...They stayed home to increase their staff’s pay - Unlike Samuel, who traveled (1 Sam 7:16), they judged from home, benefiting their scribes financially
Samuel’s Sons’ Sin: Four Tannaitic opinions
Part 4: David and Bathsheba (2 Samuel 11-12)
R' Shmuel bar Naḥmani citing R' Yonatan - David did not sin with Bathsheba - “YHWH was with him” (1 Sam 18:14) implies no sin
...David sought to sin (with Bathsheba) but did not do so
R' Yehuda HaNasi - David only intended to sin, but didn’t - “To do evil” (2 Sam 12:9) is unique phrasing; other sins are described with “he did”
R' Shmuel bar Naḥmani citing R' Yonatan - All soldiers in David's army wrote conditional divorces - “Take their pledge” (‘arubatam’) is interpreted as referring to divorce documents
The Passage
Part 1: Reuben and Bilhah (Genesis 35, 49)
R' Shmuel bar Naḥmani in the name of R' Yonatan - Reuben did not have sex with Bilhah - “The sons of Jacob were twelve” (Genesis 35:22) implies all were equal
The verse states that Reuben “lay with Bilhah,”5 but R' Yonatan insists this cannot be taken literally.
He cites the continuation—“and the sons of Jacob were twelve”—to indicate that “all of them [=Jacob’s 12 sons] were equal“.6
אמר רבי שמואל בר נחמני, אמר רבי יונתן:
כל האומר ראובן חטא --
אינו אלא טועה,
שנאמר: ״ויהיו בני יעקב שנים עשר״ —
מלמד ש:
כולן שקולים כאחד.
Having mentioned the sins of some of the significant ancestors of the Jewish people, the Talmud now addresses several additional ancestors.
R' Shmuel bar Naḥmani said that R' Yonatan said:
Anyone who says that Reuben sinned with Bilhah --
is nothing other than mistaken,
as it is stated: “And it came to pass, when Israel dwelt in that land, that Reuben went and lay with Bilhah his father’s concubine; and Israel heard of it. Now the sons of Jacob were twelve” (Genesis 35:22).
The fact that the Torah stated the number of Jacob’s sons at that point in the narrative teaches that,
even after the incident involving Bilhah, all of the brothers were equal in righteousness. Apparently, Reuben did not sin.
...Reuben merely rearranged the bed
The sin is reinterpreted as moving Jacob’s bed,7 and the Bible speaks “as if” he had sex with Bilhah (to dramatize his offense).
אלא מה אני מקיים ״וישכב את בלהה פילגש אביו״?
מלמד ש:
בלבל מצעו של אביו,
ומעלה עליו הכתוב כאילו שכב עמה.
How then do I establish the meaning of the verse: “And he lay with Bilhah his father’s concubine”? The plain understanding of the verse indicates sin.
This verse teaches that
Reuben rearranged his father’s bed in protest of Jacob’s placement of his bed in the tent of Bilhah and not in the tent of his mother Leah after the death of Rachel.
And the verse ascribes to him liability for his action as if he had actually lain with Bilhah.
R' Shimon ben Elazar - Reuben did not sin - His descendants later pronounce a curse on that act (Deut 27:20)
R' Shimon ben Elazar similarly insists Reuben could not have committed a sin that his descendants would one day publicly curse (Deuteronomy 27:20).8
תניא,
רבי שמעון בן אלעזר אומר:
מוצל אותו צדיק מאותו עון,
ולא בא מעשה זה לידו.
אפשר עתיד זרעו לעמוד על הר עיבל ולומר:
״ארור שכב עם אשת אביו״
ויבא חטא זה לידו?!
It was taught in a baraita that
R' Shimon ben Elazar says:
This righteous person, Reuben, was saved from that sin of adultery,
and that action did not come to be performed by him
Is it possible that his descendants are destined to stand on Mount Eival and say:
“Cursed be he that lies with his father’s wife; because he uncovers his father’s skirt. And all the people shall say, amen” (Deuteronomy 27:20),
and this sin will come to be performed by him?!
Is it conceivable that the members of a tribe would curse their ancestor?!
...he merely protested on behalf of his mother Leah, against Bilhah and Rachel (Genesis 30:3-8)
Instead, he had protested his mother’s dishonor (עלבון). Leah (his mother) had already suffered being a “rival”9 to her sister Rachel.
Reuben found it intolerable that Bilhah, Rachel’s female slave and now Jacob's concubine, might further displace Leah.10
In protest, Reuben rearranged Jacob’s sleeping arrangements, moving Jacob’s bed from Bilhah’s tent to Leah’s.
אלא מה אני מקיים ״וישכב את בלהה פילגש אביו״?
עלבון אמו תבע.
אמר:
אם אחות אמי היתה צרה לאמי,
שפחת אחות אמי תהא צרה לאמי?!
עמד ובלבל את מצעה.
How then do I establish the meaning of the verse: “And he lay with Bilhah his father’s concubine”?
It is understood as follows: He protested the affront to his mother.
He said:
If my mother’s sister Rachel was a rival to my mother,
will my mother’s sister’s concubine be a rival to my mother?!
He immediately stood and rearranged her bed so that Jacob would enter Leah’s tent.
Aḥerim (“Others”) - Reuben disturbed both his father’s and the Shekhina’s bed - “You defiled my bed” (Gen 49:4) should be read in the plural: "my beds"
A further tradition claims he disrupted not only Jacob’s bed, but also the resting place of the Shekhina.
This view reads Genesis 49:4 (“you defiled my bed”) as plural—“my beds”—to support a dual desecration.
אחרים אומרים:
שתי מצעות בלבל:
אחת -- של שכינה
ואחת -- של אביו.
והיינו דכתיב: ״אז חללת יצועי עלה״ —
אל תקרי ״יצועי״
אלא ״יצועיי״.
Aḥerim say:
He rearranged two beds:
one -- of the Shekhina
and one -- of his father.
And that is the meaning of that which is written: “Unstable as water, you shall not excel; because you went up to your father’s bed; then you did defile it; he went up to my bed [yetzu’i]” (Genesis 49:4).
Do not read it as yetzu’i, in the singular;
rather, read it as yetzu’ai, my beds, in the plural, referring to both the bed of his father and to the bed of the Shekhina, which rests in the tents of the righteous.
R' Eliezer/R' Yehoshua - Reuben sinned; Rabban Gamliel / R' Elazar HaModa’i - Reuben repented, not sinned ; Rava / R' Yirmeya bar Abba - Reuben avoided sin; all of them interpreting the word ‘paḥaz’ (פחז - “unstable”) as an acronym
The (unusual) word “paḥaz”11 in Jacob’s rebuke to Reuben is understood as an acronym:12
Some understand it as an acronym for sinful behavior (R' Eliezer, R' Yehoshua), others reinterpret it positively as referring to Reuben’s repentance or inner struggle (Rabban Gamliel, R' Elazar HaModa’i, Rava):
R' Eliezer - Reuben sinned - Interprets “paḥaz” as an acronym: pazta, ḥavta, zalta—you were impulsive, liable, and contemptuous
R' Yehoshua - Reuben sinned - Interprets “paḥaz” as: pasata al dat, ḥatata, zanita—you trampled the law, sinned, and were promiscuous
Rabban Gamliel - Reuben repented, not sinned - Interprets “paḥaz” as: pilalta, ḥalta, zarḥa—you prayed, trembled, and your prayer shone
R' Elazar HaModa’i - Reuben repented - Reverses “paḥaz” as: zizata, hirtata, parḥa ḥet—you shook, recoiled, and the sin flew away
Rava / R' Yirmeya bar Abba - Reuben avoided sin - “paḥaz” reversed becomes: zakharta, ḥalita, peirashta—you remembered the punishment, became sick, and withdrew
כתנאי.
״פחז כמים אל תותר״.
רבי אליעזר אומר:
״פזתה״,
״חבתה״,
״זלתה״.
רבי יהושע אומר:
״פסעתה על דת״,
״חטאת״,
״זנית״.
רבן גמליאל אומר:
״פיללתה״,
״חלתה״,
״זרחה תפלתך״.
The Talmud notes that the matter of Reuben’s innocence is parallel to a dispute between tanna’im.
As it was taught in a baraita: The verse states: “Unstable [paḥaz] as water, you shall not excel.” The rabbis understood paḥaz as an acronym.
R' Eliezer says that it means:
You were impulsive [pazta],
you were liable [ḥavta],
and you acted contemptuously [zalta].
R' Yehoshua says that it means:
You trampled the law [pasata al dat],
you sinned [ḥatata],
and you were promiscuous [zanita].
Rabban Gamliel says: The acronym does not refer to Reuben’s sin. It refers to his repentance:
You prayed [pilalta],
you trembled in fear [ḥalta],
and your prayer shone forth [zarḥa].
אמר רבן גמליאל:
עדין צריכין אנו למודעי.
רבי אלעזר המודעי אומר:
הפוך את התיבה ודורשה:
״זעזעתה״,
״הרתעתה״,
״פרח חטא ממך״.
רבא אמר,
ואמרי לה רבי ירמיה בר אבא:
״זכרת עונשו של דבר״,
״חלית עצמך חולי גדול״,
״פירשת מלחטוא״.
[...]
Rabban Gamliel said:
We still need the explanation of the Modaite,
as R' Elazar HaModa’i said:
Reverse the order of the letters in the word paḥaz and then interpret it homiletically:
You shook [zizata],
you recoiled [hirtata]; the ḥet in paḥaz is interchanged with the letter heh, so that you would not sin,
and the sin flew [parḥa] from you.
Rabban Gamliel and R' Elazar HaModa’i are of the opinion that Reuben did not sin. R' Eliezer and R' Yehoshua held that he did.
Rava said,
and some say that R' Yirmeya bar Abba said:
Reverse the letters in paḥaz and interpret:
You remembered [zakharta] the punishment for that offense,
you made yourself gravely ill [ḥalita] in order to refrain from sinning,
and you successfully withdrew [peirashta] from sinning.
[...]
For an extensive general list of Biblical sins, see the Hebrew Wikipedia category “חטאים במקרא“ (“sins in the Bible”).
As for why the Talmud downplays these particular sins, see my note in Part 2 on the cases of Eli's sons and David, where I point out that the (alleged) lineage of later Talmudic figures from these biblical characters (likely) plays a role.
כל האומר - literally: “Anyone who says”.
אינו אלא טועה - literally: “is nothing other than mistaken”.
This same formula— similarly “R’ Shmuel bar Naḥmani citing R’ Yonatan”.—is used in a statement in my recent piece, see here, on section “R' Natan - Job lived during Kingdom of Sheba - “Sheba fell and took them” (Job 1:15)“:
אמר רבי שמואל בר נחמני, אמר רבי יונתן:
כל האומר מלכת שבא אשה היתה –
אינו אלא טועה;
מאי ״מלכת שבא״?
מלכותא דשבא.
R’ Shmuel bar Naḥmani says that R’ Yonatan says:
Anyone who says that the queen of Sheba [malkat Sheva] who came to visit King Solomon (see I Kings, chapter 10) was a woman —
is nothing other than mistaken.
What is the meaning of malkat Sheba?
The kingdom [malkhuta] of Sheba, as is mentioned in Job: “And Sheba fell on them and took them away” (Job 1:15).
I.e. he had sex with her.
See Wikipedia, “Reuben (son of Jacob)”, section “Biblical references” (with stylistic adjustments):
In the Book of Genesis, Reuben is briefly described as having sex with Bilhah, his stepmother's female slave and father's concubine in 35:22.
On his deathbed, Jacob declares that Reuben "will no longer excel, for you went up onto your father's bed, onto my couch and defiled it" in 49:4.
Reuben's behaviour angered Jacob to the extent that he gave Reuben's birthright (as firstborn) to Joseph: a comment within 1 Chronicles 5:1 makes the same point.)
שקולים כאחד - literally: “weighed as one”, an idiom meaning “equal”; i.e. Reuben remained spiritually equal to his brothers.
בלבל מצעו של אביו - literally: “mixed up his father’s [bed]sheets (מצעו)“.
It’s explained in the upcoming section that the did this in protest of the humiliation of his mother Leah.
Referring to the curses in the wilderness—after the Exodus—at Mount Gerizim and Mount Ebal.
See Wikipedia, “Ki Tavo“, section “Fifth reading—Deuteronomy 27:11–28:6“:
[…] Moses charged the people that after they had crossed the Jordan, the tribes of Simeon, Levi, Judah, Issachar, Joseph, and Benjamin were to stand on Mount Gerizim when the blessings were spoken, and the tribes of Reuben, Gad, Asher, Zebulun, Dan, and Naphthali were to stand on Mount Ebal when the curses were spoken.
The Levites were then to loudly curse anyone who: made a sculptured image; insulted father or mother; moved a fellow countryman's landmark; misdirected a blind person; subverted the rights of the stranger, the fatherless, or the widow; lay with his father's wife; lay with any beast; lay with his sister; lay with his mother-in-law; struck down his fellow countryman in secret; accepted a bribe in a murder case; or otherwise would not observe the commandments; and for each curse all the people were to say, "Amen."
From a pshat perspective, “lay with his father's wife“ is indeed intertextually related to Reuben’s sin.
See also on these blessings and curses at length in the Mishnah and related Talmudic sugya in tractate Sotah; I plan to discuss those in a future piece: Mishnah_Sotah.7.5 (= Sotah.32a.10-32b.1).
See Wikipedia, “Bilhah“:
Genesis 29:29 describes her as Laban's female slave (שִׁפְחָה), who was given to Rachel to be her female slave on Rachel's marriage to Jacob.
When Rachel failed to have children, Rachel gave Bilhah to Jacob [to be] a wife to bear him children. Bilhah gave birth to two sons, whom Rachel claimed as her own and named Dan and Naphtali. (Genesis.30.3-8)
Genesis 35:22 expressly calls Bilhah Jacob's concubine, a pilegesh.
When Leah saw that she had stopped having children, she took her servant Zilpah and gave her to Jacob like a wife to bear him children as well. (Genesis.30.9)
פחז - “unstable”.
This word is a biblical hapax (meaning, it only appears this one time in the Bible), see Hebrew Wiktionary.
The five opinions are visualized in the table above, showing how each rabbi interprets the letters of the word פחז (paḥaz) as an acronym, listing each letter and its corresponding word.
For other examples of Talmudic interpretation of a Biblical word via acronym, see especially my recent piece: “‘Where in Scripture is Notarikon Found?’: Talmudic Interpretation of Biblical Words as Acronyms (Shabbat 105a)“.