Pt1 Zealotry, Intermarriage, and the Biblical Story of Pinehas and Zimri in Numbers 25 (Sanhedrin 81b-82b)

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

Part 1

This sugya centers on one of the Mishnah’s most unusual categories of punishment: offenses for which no court-imposed execution is prescribed, but which may nevertheless provoke immediate extrajudicial killing. The Mishnah states that a person who steals a Temple service vessel, curses God through the language of sorcery, or has sex with a non-Jewish woman (בועל ארמית) may be “killed by zealots” (קנאין פוגעין בו). It then gives another form of nonjudicial punishment within the Temple: a priest who performs the service while ritually impure is not brought before a court, but is taken outside the Temple courtyard by young priests and killed by blows to the skull. The final clause contrasts these cases with a non-priest who performs the Temple service, whose formal liability is disputed: R’ Akiva assigns judicial execution by strangulation, while the Rabbis assign death at the hand of Heaven.

The Talmud first defines the Mishnah’s two obscure offenses. Rav Yehuda explains the kasva as a Temple service vessel, connecting the term with the vessels mentioned in Numbers 4:7. The Talmud then finds an allusion to the punishment for stealing such a vessel in Numbers 4:20, interpreting the description of viewing the sacred objects as they are covered through a wordplay suggesting taking or “swallowing” them. The offense of “cursing with a sorcerer” is similarly unpacked: Rav Yosef understands it as a formula in which the offender invokes sorcery while directing a curse at God (i.e. blasphemy); another formulation describes the curse as directed at the victim, as well as at “his Creator and Provider” (i.e. God).

Most of the sugya, however, develops the Mishnah’s third case: a Jewish man who has sex with a non-Jewish woman. Rav Kahana asks Rav what follows if no zealot kills the offender. Rav initially cannot recall the relevant tradition. A dream in which Rav Kahana hears Malachi 2:11 prompts Rav to remember a homiletical interpretation of the verse; the successive clauses in Malachi are read as references to idolatry, homosexual sex, sex with a prostitute, and sex with a non-Jewish woman. The following verse, Malachi 2:12, is then interpreted as describing the loss of distinguished descendants: a Torah scholar who commits such offenses will have no descendants prominent among scholars or students, while a priest will have no descendant who offers a meal-offering. R’ Hiyya bar Avuya develops the same association further, stating that sex with a non-Jewish woman is equivalent to marrying an idol, based on Malachi’s expression “the daughter of a strange god.”

Part 2

The discussion briefly digresses through another teaching of R’ Hiyya bar Avuya concerning the skull of King Jehoiakim. R’ Perida’s grandfather finds a skull at the gates of Jerusalem bearing the inscription “this and yet another.” Every attempt to bury it fails, which leads him to identify it as the skull of the biblical Jehoiakim (c. 600 BCE, the 18th and third-from-last King of Judah), in light of Jeremiah’s prophecy that the king would receive “the burial of a donkey” and be cast beyond Jerusalem’s gates. Out of respect for a king, he wraps the skull in silk and places it in a chest. His wife, persuaded by neighbors that it belonged to a former wife whom her husband still remembered, burns it. The phrase “this and yet another” is thereby understood as predicting an additional humiliation beyond Jehoiakim’s denial of normal burial.

The Talmud then returns to sex with non-Jewish women and gives the prohibition a broader rabbinic legal framework. Rav Dimi reports that the Hasmonean court treated such intercourse as implicating four categories: menstruating woman (nidda), female slave, non-Jewish woman, and married woman. Ravin gives the first three categories but substitutes “prostitute” for “married woman,” maintaining that non-Jews do not possess the relevant halakhic framework of marriage. Rav Dimi responds that non-Jews certainly do not treat their wives as ownerless, and their marital relationships can therefore generate the relevant prohibition.

The central legal issue is then sharply delimited. Rav Hisda, followed by R’ Yohanan, rules that if a prospective zealot asks the court whether he should kill the offender, the court does not instruct him to do so. The rule therefore authorizes an immediate act of zealotry but cannot be transformed into an ordinary judicial directive. Its temporal scope is equally narrow. If Zimri had ceased having sex with Cozbi before Pinehas killed him (in the biblical narrative in Numbers 25), Pinehas would have been liable for murder. Conversely, if Zimri had killed Pinehas while Pinehas was attempting to kill him, Zimri would not have been liable, since Pinehas would at that moment have had the legal status of a pursuer. The sugya thus formulates an exceptional authorization that exists only during the act itself and does not give the zealot the normal protection enjoyed by an authorized judicial agent.

These principles lead directly into an extensive rabbinic retelling of Numbers 25. The biblical narrative describes Israel’s involvement with the women of Moab and the worship of Baal-Peor, Moses’ order that the offenders be killed, Zimri’s public appearance with Cozbi, and Pinehas’s killing of the couple. The Talmud substantially expands this account. Members of the tribe of Shimon complain to their leader Zimri that they are being subjected to capital punishment while he remains passive. Zimri gathers 24,000 Israelites and approaches Cozbi. She initially refuses him because her father instructed her to submit only to Israel’s greatest leader. Zimri claims sufficient status because he is the prince of Shimon and because Shimon, Jacob’s second son, precedes Levi, Jacob’s third son, from whom Moses descends.

Zimri then publicly brings Cozbi before Moses and challenges him: if Cozbi is forbidden, who permitted Moses himself to marry Jethro’s daughter? At this point, according to the Talmud, Moses forgets the relevant law, and the assembly breaks into tears. Pinehas sees what is happening and acts. Three amoraic interpretations explain precisely what he “saw.” According to Rav, he saw the act and remembered the halakha that one who has sex with a non-Jewish woman may be killed by zealots. He reminds Moses of the teaching, and Moses responds that the person who remembers the rule should carry it out. According to Shmuel, Pinehas recognized that when God’s name is being desecrated, ordinary obligations of deference to one’s teacher do not prevent immediate action. R’ Yitzhak in the name of R’ Eliezer instead says that Pinehas saw an angel destroying the people and understood that intervention was urgently required.

Part 3

The narrative pays close attention to the mechanics of Pinehas’s act. The statement that he arose from the assembly and only then took a spear is used to derive that weapons should not be brought into the study hall. Pinehas removes the spearhead, conceals it in his clothing, and carries the shaft as though it were a walking stick. When he reaches the tribe of Shimon, he presents himself as though he too intends to participate in the sexual misconduct. The members of the tribe therefore allow him access to Zimri and Cozbi.

R’ Yohanan describes six miracles that make the killing possible. Zimri does not withdraw from Cozbi, although doing so would immediately terminate Pinehas’s authorization to kill him. He does not call for assistance. Pinehas’s spear strikes Zimri and Cozbi precisely through their genitals, displaying the offense for which they were killed. Their bodies remain fixed on the spear. An angel raises the lintel so that Pinehas can carry them out, and another angel strikes the surrounding people, preventing interference.

Pinehas then brings the bodies before God and protests the death of 24,000 Israelites on account of the offenders. Psalm 106:30, which says that Pinehas “stood and va-yefalel,” is interpreted by R’ Elazar as indicating something stronger than prayer: Pinehas effectively enters into a judicial argument with God. The ministering angels attempt to repel him, but God defends him as both a hereditary zealot and a hereditary appeaser of divine wrath, linking him respectively with Levi and Aaron.

The same concern with genealogy appears in the public response to Pinehas. The tribes criticize him through his descent from Jethro, describing him contemptuously as the descendant of “one who fattened calves for idolatry” and questioning his right to kill a prince of Israel. The biblical text therefore emphasizes his other ancestry: “Pinehas son of Elazar son of Aaron the priest.” His descent from Aaron validates his action, and God instructs Moses to greet him with peace. The “covenant of peace” and “eternal priesthood” of Numbers 25:12–13 are presented as divine ratification of an act that halted the plague and achieved continuing atonement.

The final section shifts from the legal and theological meaning of the episode to highly explicit traditions about Zimri and Cozbi themselves. Rav Nahman in the name of Rav states that Zimri had sex with Cozbi 424 times that day, deriving the number from the numerical value (gematria) of a word in Proverbs 30:31. A baraita gives the number as 60 and describes both partners’ resulting physical condition. Rav Kahana and Rav Yosef add grotesquely exaggerated descriptions of Cozbi’s genitalia. These statements function as part of the Talmud’s broader characterization of the pair through extreme sexual excess and degradation.

The sugya concludes with etiological interpretations of their names. Rav Sheshet states that Cozbi’s actual name was Shevilnai daughter of Zur and derives “Cozbi” from wordplays concerning her failure to follow her father’s instructions or her role in his plan to destroy Israel through sexual temptation. Popular sayings associate the name Shevilnai with prostitution. R’ Yohanan similarly assigns Zimri five names: Zimri, “son of Salu,” Saul, “son of the Canaanite woman,” and “Shelumiel son of Zuri Shaddai.” The first four are treated as descriptive names encoding aspects of his offense, while “Shelumiel son of Zuri Shaddai,” the prince of Shimon listed in Numbers 1:6, is identified as his actual name.

The sugya therefore combines several distinct forms of rabbinic discourse around the Pinehas narrative. It begins with the legal category of zealotry and carefully defines its exceptional status: the act may be permitted without being judicially ordered, it is authorized only during the offense, and the zealot acts at personal legal risk. It then rereads Numbers 25 as an account of a crisis in legal authority, in which Moses forgets the law and Pinehas remembers and executes it. Around this legal core, the Talmud develops themes of intermarriage and idolatry, tribal status and genealogy, divine plague and atonement, miraculous assistance, biblical wordplay, and the characterization of Zimri and Cozbi through sexual excess and derogatory name interpretation. The result is an extended interpretation of how an extraordinary biblical act of violence became the paradigmatic case for the Mishnah’s rule that, under narrowly defined circumstances, “zealots strike him.”

Outline

Intro

The Passage

Mishnah (Sanhedrin 9:6)

1. One who steals a Temple service vessel, curses God through sorcery, or has sex with a non-Jewish woman may be killed by zealots

2. A priest who serves while impure is killed by fellow priests

3. A non-priest who performs Temple service is subject to death, with R’ Akiva and the Rabbis disputing its form - R’ Akiva - executed by strangulation; Rabbis - death at the hand of Heaven

Talmud

1. Rav Yehuda - The Mishnah’s kasva means a Temple service vessel - Numbers 4:7

2. Prooftext that the liability of one who steals a sacred vessel: intimated by the warning not to see sacred objects as they are covered/taken - Numbers 4:20

3. Rav Yosef - “One who curses with a sorcerer” means one who says, “Let the sorcerer strike his sorcerer” (thereby blaspheming God through idolatrous terminology)

4. Rabbis / alternatively Rabba bar Mari - The offense consists of saying that the sorcerer should strike the victim, his Creator (=God), and his Provider

5. Rav Kahana queries Rav - what happens if zealots don’t kill one who had sex with a non-Jewish woman

   1. Rav Kahana reports a dream in which Malachi’s condemnation of Judah’s treachery and union with “the daughter of a strange god” was recited to him - Malachi 2:11

   2. This prompts Rav to remember the relevant tradition: Malachi 2:11 is homiletically interpreted to allude successively to idolatry, homosexual sex, sex with a prostitute, and sex with a non-Jewish woman - Jeremiah 3:20; Leviticus 18:22; Deuteronomy 23:18

   3. The punishment described in the subsequent verse means that a Torah scholar who commits these sins will leave no descendants distinguished among scholars or students; a priest will leave no son who offers meal-offerings - Malachi 2:12

6. R’ Hiyya bar Avuya - One who has sex with a non-Jewish woman is regarded as though he married an idol - Malachi 2:11

Part 2

1. R’ Hiyya bar Avuya - Jehoiakim’s skull bore the words “this and yet another”

2. The Anecdote of R’ Perida’s grandfather and Jehoiakim’s skull

   1. It repeatedly emerged from burial

   2. Jeremiah 22:19

   3. it was eventually burned, fulfilling an additional punishment beyond being denied honorable burial

3. Rav Dimi - The Hasmonean court decreed that sex with a non-Jewish woman entails four rabbinic categories: menstruating woman (nidda), female slave, non-Jewish woman, and married woman

4. Ravin - The Hasmonean decree instead comprises menstruating woman, female slave, non-Jewish woman, and prostitute; non-Jews do not possess the relevant halakhic status of marriage

5. Rav Hisda - If a zealot asks the court whether he should kill a Jew engaged in sex with a non-Jewish woman, the court does not instruct him to do so

6. Rabba bar bar Hana citing R’ Yohanan - Likewise, the rule that zealots may strike such a sinner is not formally issued as an instruction to someone who asks

7. If Zimri had stopped having sex before Pinehas killed him, Pinehas would have been liable for murder

8. If Zimri had killed Pinehas in self-defense, Zimri would not have been liable, since Pinehas was then legally a pursuer

9. The tribe of Shimon complained to Zimri that its members were being executed while he remained passive - Numbers 25:5–7

   1. Zimri brought Cozbi before Moses and challenged the prohibition by invoking Moses’ marriage to Jethro’s daughter; Moses forgot the law, and the people wept

   2. Numbers 25:6-7

10. Rav - Pinehas “saw” the act and remembered the law that one who has sex with a non-Jewish woman may be killed by zealots

    1. Moses told Pinehas that the one who recalls the rule should execute it - Numbers 25:7

11. Shmuel - Pinehas acted without first showing deference to Moses because where God’s name is being desecrated, respect for one’s teacher does not prevent immediate action - Proverbs 21:30

12. R’ Yitzhak citing R’ Eliezer - Pinehas saw an angel destroying the people, and realized that immediate intervention was necessary

Part 3

1. From the fact that Pinehas took his spear only after leaving the assembly, we can derive that one may not enter the study hall armed - Numbers 25:7

2. Pinehas concealed the spearhead, pretended he too intended to participate in the sexual misconduct

   1. Pinehas thereby gained access to Zimri and Cozbi

3. R’ Yohanan - Six miracles enabled Pinehas to kill Zimri and Cozbi: Zimri did not withdraw, did not summon aid, the spear struck both at the genitals, they remained on it, an angel raised the lintel, and another angel struck the people

4. Pinehas cast Zimri and Cozbi before God and protested that 24,000 Israelites should not die because of them - Numbers 25:9; Psalms 106:30

5. R’ Elazar - Psalms says va-yefalel, not va-yitpallel, teaching that Pinehas effectively argued a judicial case against God

   1. The angels wished to repel him, but God defended him as a hereditary zealot and appeaser of wrath - Psalms 106:30

6. The tribes demeaned Pinehas because of his descent from Jethro - Exodus 6:25

   1. ... So Scripture emphasized his descent from Aaron - Numbers 25:11

7. God instructed Moses to greet Pinehas with peace; Pinehas’s act of atonement was worthy of enduring forever - Numbers 25:12–13

8. Rav Nahman citing Rav - Zimri had sex with Cozbi 424 times that day, corresponding numerically to zarzir; Pinehas waited until Zimri’s strength was exhausted, though God was supporting him - Proverbs 30:31

9. Baraita - Zimri had sex 60 times, until he became physically depleted and Cozbi was compared to a water-filled garden bed

10. Rav Kahana - Cozbi’s “seat” (=genitalia) was as large as a beit se’a

11. Rav Yosef - Cozbi’s genitalia was a cubit wide

12. Rav Sheshet - Cozbi’s actual name was Shevilnai daughter of Zur

    1. The Bible calls her “Cozbi” because she didn’t fulfill her father’s instructions

    2. Alternatively : she told her father that he should destroy Israel through her

    3. Popular sayings using the name Shevilnai associate her with prostitution and imply that her reputation also disgraced her mother

13. R’ Yohanan - Zimri had five names: Zimri, “son of Salu,” Saul, “son of the Canaanite woman,” and “Shelumiel son of Zuri Shaddai” - Numbers 1:6

    1. Each is homiletically connected with his sin; his actual name was “Shelumiel son of Zuri Shaddai”

The Passage

Sanhedrin/81b#17 thru 82b#11

Mishnah (Sanhedrin 9:6)

Mishnah Sanhedrin 9:6

One who steals a Temple service vessel, curses God through sorcery, or has sex with a non-Jewish woman may be killed by zealots

1. הגונב את הקסוה,

2. והמקלל בקוסם,

3. והבועל ארמית –

קנאין פוגעין בו.

1. With regard to one who steals a kasva,

2. and one who curses with a sorcerer,

3. and one who has sex with an Aramean woman (ארמית) --

zealots strike him and kill him.

Although the Torah does not say that one who performs one of these actions is subject to execution, it is permitted for anyone who zealously takes the vengeance of YHWH to do so.

A priest who serves while impure is killed by fellow priests

כהן ששמש בטומאה –

אין אחיו הכהנים מביאין אותו לבית דין,

אלא פרחי כהונה מוציאין אותו חוץ לעזרה

ומפציעין את מוחו בגזירין.

In the case of a priest who performed the Temple service in a state of ritual impurity --

his priestly brethren do not bring him to court for judgment;

Rather, the young men of the priesthood remove him from the Temple courtyard

and pierce (מפציעין) his skull¹ with pieces of wood (גזירין).

A non-priest who performs Temple service is subject to death, with R’ Akiva and the Rabbis disputing its form - R’ Akiva - executed by strangulation; Rabbis - death at the hand of Heaven

זר ששמש במקדש –

רבי עקיבא אומר:

בחנק,

וחכמים אומרים:

בידי שמים.

In the case of a non-priest who performed the service in the Temple --

R’ Akiva says:

His execution is by strangulation,

and the Rabbis say:

He is not executed with a court-imposed death penalty; rather, he is liable to receive death at the hand of Heaven.

Talmud

Rav Yehuda - The Mishnah’s kasva means a Temple service vessel - Numbers 4:7

מאי קסוה?

אמר רב יהודה:

כלי שרת.

וכן הוא אומר:

״ואת קשות הנסך״.

The Talmud asks: What is the kasva mentioned in the Mishnah?

Rav Yehuda says:

It is a term used to describe any Temple service vessel (כלי שרת) utilized in the Temple.

And likewise, it is stated:

“And the jars [kesot] with which to pour libations” (Numbers 4:7).

Prooftext that the liability of one who steals a sacred vessel: intimated by the warning not to see sacred objects as they are covered/taken - Numbers 4:20

והיכא רמיזא?

״ולא יבאו לראות כבלע את הקדש

ומתו״.

The Talmud asks: And where is it intimated that one who steals a service vessel is liable to be killed by zealots?

The Talmud answers that it is intimated in the verse:

“But they shall not come to see the sacred items as they are being covered [כבלע - ke-vala],

lest they die” (Numbers 4:20).

The Talmud interprets the term ke-vala as “one who ingests,” i.e., who takes (see Job 20:15), and the verse thereby teaches that one who steals a service vessel is liable to be killed.

Rav Yosef - “One who curses with a sorcerer” means one who says, “Let the sorcerer strike his sorcerer” (thereby blaspheming God through idolatrous terminology)

והמקלל בקוסם.

תני רב יוסף:

יכה קוסם את קוסמו.

The Mishnah teaches: And one who curses with a sorcerer is among those liable to be killed by zealots.

Rav Yosef teaches that the reference is to one who says:

“Let the sorcerer (קוסם) strike his sorcerer,”

meaning one who blasphemes God in the name of idol worship. He does not explicitly say God’s name, but he believes that a sorcerer can curse the sorcerer who provided him with his powers, i.e., the Shekhina.

Rabbis / alternatively Rabba bar Mari - The offense consists of saying that the sorcerer should strike the victim, his Creator (=God), and his Provider

רבנן, ואיתימא רבה בר מרי,

אמרי:

יכהו קוסם

1. לו

2. ולקונו

3. ולמקנו.

The Rabbis, and some say that it was Rabba, son of Mari, say that

the reference is to one who says: Let the sorcerer strike

1. him, i.e., the individual with whom he is quarreling,

2. and his Creator (קונו - i.e., God)

3. and his Provider (=God)

Since he curses God, it is permitted for zealots to kill him.

Rav Kahana queries Rav - what happens if zealots don’t kill one who had sex with a non-Jewish woman

והבועל ארמית,

בעא מיניה רב כהנא מרב:

לא פגעו בו קנאין,

מהו?

The Mishnah teaches that one who has sex with an Aramean woman is among those liable to be killed by zealots.

Rav Kahana asked of Rav:

If zealots did not strike him,

what happens?

Rav Kahana reports a dream in which Malachi’s condemnation of Judah’s treachery and union with “the daughter of a strange god” was recited to him - Malachi 2:11

אינשייה רב לגמריה.

אקריוה לרב כהנא בחלמיה:

״בגדה יהודה

ותועבה נעשתה בישראל ובירושלים

כי חלל יהודה קדש ה׳ אשר אהב

ובעל בת אל נכר״.

אתא אמר ליה:

הכי אקריון.

Rav forgot that which he learned through tradition concerning this matter.

They read this verse to Rav Kahana in his dream:

“Judah has dealt treacherously (בגדה)

and an abomination is committed in Israel and in Jerusalem,

as Judah has profaned the sacred of YHWH, which he loves,

and has had sex with (בעל) the daughter of a strange god” (Malachi 2:11).

Rav Kahana came and said to Rav: This is what they read to me in my dream.

This prompts Rav to remember the relevant tradition: Malachi 2:11 is homiletically interpreted to allude successively to idolatry, homosexual sex, sex with a prostitute, and sex with a non-Jewish woman - Jeremiah 3:20; Leviticus 18:22; Deuteronomy 23:18

אדכריה רב לגמריה.

1. ״בגדה יהודה״

   1. זו עבודה זרה,

   2. וכן הוא אומר: ״כן בגדתם בי בית ישראל, נאם ה׳״.

2. ״ותועבה נעשתה בישראל ובירושלים״

   1. זה משכב זכור,

   2. וכן הוא אומר: ״ואת זכר לא תשכב משכבי אשה, תועבה היא״.

3. ״כי חלל יהודה קדש ה׳״

   1. זו זונה,

   2. וכן הוא אומר: ״לא תהיה קדשה מבנות ישראל״.

4. ״ובעל בת אל נכר״

   1. זה הבא על הגויה.

Rav then remembered that which he learned through tradition (גמריה) and said:

1. “Judah has dealt treacherously,”

   1. this is a reference to the sin of idol worship.

   2. And likewise it says: But as a wife who treacherously departs her husband, you have dealt treacherously with Me, house of Israel, says YHWH (Jeremiah 3:20).

2. “And an abomination is committed in Israel and in Jerusalem,”

   1. this is a reference to homosexual sex (משכב זכור),

   2. and likewise it says: “You shall not lie with a man as one lies with a woman; it is an abomination” (Leviticus 18:22).

3. “As Judah has profaned the sacred [kodesh] of YHWH,”

   1. this is a reference to a prostitute,

   2. and likewise it says: “There shall be no prostitute [kedesha] of the daughters of Israel” (Deuteronomy 23:18).

4. “And has had sex with the daughter of a strange god,”

   1. this is a reference to one who has sex with a non-Jew woman.

The punishment described in the subsequent verse means that a Torah scholar who commits these sins will leave no descendants distinguished among scholars or students; a priest will leave no son who offers meal-offerings - Malachi 2:12

וכתיב בתריה:

״יכרת ה׳ לאיש אשר יעשנה

ער וענה מאהלי יעקב

ומגיש מנחה לה׳ צבאות״.

And it is written thereafter with regard to those enumerated in the verse:

“May YHWH excise the man who does this,

who calls (ער) and who answers (ענה) from the tents of Jacob,

and he who sacrifices a meal-offering (מגיש מנחה) to YHWH of hosts” (Malachi 2:12).

• אם תלמיד חכם הוא –

  • לא יהיה לו ער בחכמים, ועונה בתלמידים.

• אם כהן הוא –

  • לא יהיה לו בן מגיש מנחה לה׳ צבאות.

The Talmud interprets the verse:

• If he is a Torah scholar --

  • he will have neither one among his descendants “who calls” and initiates discourse among the rabbis, nor one “who answers “among the students, i.e., one who is capable of answering questions posed by the rabbis.

• If he is a priest --

  • he will not have among his descendants a son “who sacrifices a meal-offering to YHWH of hosts.”

R’ Hiyya bar Avuya - One who has sex with a non-Jewish woman is regarded as though he married an idol - Malachi 2:11

אמר רבי חייא בר אבויה:

כל הבא על הגויה --

כאילו מתחתן בעבודה זרה,

דכתיב:

״ובעל בת אל נכר״.

וכי בת יש לו לאל נכר?!

אלא זה הבא על הגויה.

R’ Ḥiyya bar Avuya says:

With regard to anyone who has sex with a non-Jew woman --

it is as though he married an idol,

as it is written:

“And has had sex with the daughter of a foreign god.”

Does a foreign god have a daughter?!

Rather, this is a reference to one who has sex with a non-Jew woman who is an adherent of a foreign god.

1. מוחו - literally: “brain”.

The standard Hebrew/Aramaic word for skull is gulgólet (גלגולת/גולגלתא); see later in the sugya, in Part 2, section “R’ Hiyya bar Avuya - Jehoiakim’s skull bore the words “this and yet another” “ and on.