This is the second and final part of a two-part series. Part 1 is here; the outline of the series can be found at Part 1.
R’ Yitzhak - Ahab challenged Obadiah because righteous servants had brought blessing to Laban and Potiphar, whereas Ahab’s house was not blessed - I Kings 18:3; Genesis 30:27; Genesis 39:5
כתיב:
״ויקרא אחאב אל עבדיהו
אשר על הבית
ועבדיהו היה ירא [את] ה׳ מאד״.
מאי קאמר קרא?
It is written:
“And Ahab called Obadiah,
who was over the household;
now Obadiah feared YHWH greatly” (I Kings 18:3).
The Talmud asks: What is the verse saying?
What is the connection between Obadiah’s fear of YHWH and the call of Ahab?
אמר רבי יצחק:
אמר ליה:
ביעקב כתיב
״נחשתי, ויברכני ה׳ בגללך״,
ביוסף כתיב
״ויברך ה׳ את בית המצרי בגלל יוסף״.
ביתא דההוא גברא לא הוה מיבריך.
שמא לא ירא אלהים אתה?!
R’ Yitzḥak says that
Ahab said to Obadiah:
It is written with regard to Jacob:
“And Laban said to him: If now I have found favor in your eyes, I have observed the signs, and YHWH has blessed me for your sake” (Genesis 30:27).
It is written with regard to Joseph:
“YHWH blessed the Egyptian’s house for Joseph’s sake” (Genesis 39:5).
The house of that man, i.e., my [=Ahab’s] house, was not blessed.
Perhaps you [=Obadiah] do not fear God?!
A bat kol affirmed Obadiah’s righteousness, and blamed Ahab’s household
יצתה בת קול ואמרה:
״ועבדיהו היה ירא את ה׳ מאד״,
אבל ביתו של אחאב אינו מזומן לברכה.
Immediately, a bat kol emerged and said:
“Now Obadiah feared YHWH greatly,”
but the house of Ahab is not fit for blessing like the houses of those masters.
R’ Abba - Obadiah is praised more strongly than Abraham as a God-fearer, as Obadiah is described as fearing God “greatly”, while Abraham isn’t described as such - I Kings 18:3; Genesis 22:12
(See footnote.)1
אמר רבי אבא:
גדול שנאמר בעובדיהו
יותר ממה שנאמר באברהם:
דאילו באברהם
לא כתיב ״מאד״,
ובעובדיהו
כתיב ״מאד״.
R’ Abba says:
The praise that is stated with regard to Obadiah
is greater than that which is stated with regard to Abraham:
As with regard to Abraham
the verse states: “For now I know that you fear God” (Genesis 22:12), and the term “greatly” (מאד) is not written,
and about Obadiah
the term “greatly” is written.
R’ Yitzhak - Obadiah merited prophecy because he hid 100 prophets from Jezebel - I Kings 18:4
אמר רבי יצחק:
מפני מה זכה עובדיהו לנביאות?
מפני שהחביא מאה נביאים במערה,
R’ Yitzḥak says:
For what reason did Obadiah merit prophecy?
It is because he concealed 100 prophets in a cave,
שנאמר:
״ויהי בהכרית איזבל את נביאי ה׳
ויקח עבדיהו מאה נביאים
ויחביאם חמשים איש במערה וגו״.
as it is stated:
“It was so, when Jezebel cut off the prophets of YHWH,
that Obadiah took 100 prophets,
and hid them, 50 men in a cave,
and fed them with bread and water” (I Kings 18:4).
R’ Elazar - Obadiah divided the prophets into groups of 50 due to learning from Jacob’s strategy of dividing his camp so that one group might escape - I Kings 18:4; Genesis 32:9
מאי שנא חמשים איש?
אמר רבי אלעזר:
מיעקב למד,
שנאמר:
״והיה המחנה הנשאר לפליטה״.
The Talmud asks: What is different, i.e., why did he decide, to conceal 50 men in each of two caves and not conceal them all together in one cave?
R’ Elazar says:
He learned from the behavior of Jacob to do so,
as it is stated:
“And he said: If Esau comes to the one camp and strikes it,
then the camp that is left shall escape” (Genesis 32:9).
Obadiah learned from this to divide the prophets and thereby lessen the danger.
R’ Abbahu - Obadiah used two groups of 50 simply because a cave could not hold more than 50 people
רבי אבהו אמר:
לפי שאין מערה מחזקת יותר מחמשים.
R’ Abbahu says:
It is because there is no cave big enough to contain more than 50 people.
R’ Yitzhak - Obadiah was chosen to prophesy against Edom because he lived among the wicked Ahab and Jezebel without learning from them, whereas Esau lived among the righteous Isaac and Rebekah without learning from them - Obadiah 1:1
״חזון עבדיהו
כה אמר ה׳ אלהים לאדום וגו׳״.
מאי שנא עובדיה לאדום?
The verse states:
“The vision of Obadiah.
So says YHWH God concerning Edom:
We have heard a message from YHWH, and an ambassador is sent among the nations: Arise, and let us rise up against her in battle” (Obadiah 1:1).
The Talmud asks: What is different, i.e., what is the reason, that specifically Obadiah prophesied concerning Edom?
אמר רבי יצחק:
אמר הקדוש ברוך הוא:
יבא עובדיהו
הדר בין שני רשעים
ולא למד ממעשיהם,
וינבא על עשו הרשע
שדר בין שני צדיקים
ולא למד ממעשיהם.
R’ Yitzḥak says:
God said:
Let Obadiah come,
who dwells among two wicked ones, Ahab and Jezebel,
but did not learn from their actions;
and he will prophesy concerning Esau the wicked, the progenitor of Edom,
who dwelled among two righteous ones, Isaac and Rebekkah,
but did not learn from their actions.
Efrayim Miksha’a citing R’ Meir - Obadiah was an Edomite convert
אמר אפרים מקשאה, תלמידו של רבי מאיר, משום רבי מאיר:
עובדיה גר אדומי היה.
Efrayim Miksha’a, a student of R’ Meir, said in the name of R’ Meir:
Obadiah was an Edomite convert.
Consequently, he prophesied with regard to Edom.
Fitting the proverb that “the ax that destroys the forest comes from the forest itself”
והיינו דאמרי אינשי:
מניה וביה אבא ניזיל ביה נרגא.
And this is as people say:
From and within the forest (אבא) comes the ax (נרגא) to it,2
R’ Yohanan citing R’ Shimon ben Yohai - David’s punishment of Moab exemplifies the same proverb (as previous): destruction comes from within, since David descended from Ruth the Moabite - II Samuel 8:2
״ויך את מואב
וימדדם בחבל
השכב אותם ארצה״.
The verse states concerning King David:
“And he struck Moab
and measured them with the line,
making them lie down on the ground
and he measured two lines to put to death” (II Samuel 8:2).
אמר רבי יוחנן, משום רבי שמעון בן יוחי:
היינו דאמרי אינשי:
מיניה וביה אבא ליזיל ביה נרגא.
R’ Yoḥanan says in the name of R’ Shimon ben Yoḥai:
This is as people say:
From and within the forest comes the ax to it,
as King David was a descendant of Ruth the Moabite.
Rav Dimi - The same idea is expressed by the proverb: “A thigh rots from within” (i.e., punishment emerges from within the offending group itself) - II Samuel 8:2
כי אתא רב דימי אמר:
ירך מתוכה מסרחת.
When Rav Dimi came from Eretz Yisrael he stated something similar to this:
A thigh (ירך) rots3 from within,
Rav and Shmuel - They dispute whether the king of Moab sacrificed his son for the sake of Heaven or for idolatry - II Kings 3:27
״ויקח את בנו הבכור
אשר ימלך תחתיו
ויעלהו עלה על החמה״.
§ The Talmud cites a verse concerning the king of Moab:
“Then he took his eldest son,
who should have reigned in his stead,
and sacrificed him for a burnt offering upon the wall;
and there was great indignation against Israel, and they departed from him and returned to their own land” (II Kings 3:27).
רב ושמואל:
חד אמר:
לשם שמים,
וחד אמר:
לשם עבודה זרה.
Rav and Shmuel engage in a dispute concerning this:
One says:
The king sacrificed his son for the sake of Heaven,
and one says:
The king sacrificed his son for the sake of idol worship.
R’ Yehoshua ben Levi - resolving a contradiction between two verses in Ezekiel - Israel failed to imitate the good practices of the surrounding non-Jewish nations, but did imitate their corrupt practices - Ezekiel 5:7, 11:12
בשלמא למאן דאמר לשם שמים,
היינו דכתיב
״ויהי קצף גדול על ישראל״.
The Talmud asks:
Granted, according to the one who says that he sacrificed him for the sake of Heaven,
this is as it is written:
“And there was great indignation against Israel,”
as the non-Jewish king of Moab attempted to honor God according to his understanding, while the Jewish people were straying from worshipping God, leading to God’s anger against them.
אלא למאן דאמר לשם עבודה זרה,
אמאי ״ויהי קצף״?
But according to the one who says that he sacrificed him for the sake of idol worship,
why would the verse state: “And there was…indignation”?
כדרבי יהושע בן לוי,
דרבי יהושע בן לוי רמי:
כתיב
״וכמשפטי הגוים אשר סביבותיכם לא עשיתם״,
וכתיב
״וכמשפטי הגוים אשר סביבותיכם עשיתם״.
כמתוקנין שבהם –
לא עשיתם,
כמקולקלין שבהם –
עשיתם.
The Talmud answers: This can be understood in accordance with the statement of R’ Yehoshua ben Levi.
As R’ Yehoshua ben Levi raises a contradiction:
It is written concerning the Jewish people:
“You have not walked in My statutes, neither have you kept My ordinances; nor have you done according to the statutes of the nations that are round about you” (Ezekiel 5:7),
and it is also written:
“You have done according to the statutes of the nations that are round about you” (Ezekiel 11:12).
R’ Yehoshua ben Levi explains:
like the proper ones (מתוקנין) among the non-Jewish nations,
you did not act
but like the flawed ones (מקולקלין) among them
you did act
Here as well, the Jewish people learned from the king of Moab to engage in human sacrifice.
R’ Hanina bar Pappa - After the Moab episode, Israel fell to the lowest spiritual level; “they returned to the land” is read as “descent toward the earth” - II Kings 3:27
״ויסעו מעליו וישובו לארץ״.
אמר רבי חנינא בר פפא:
באותה שעה ירדו שונאיהן של ישראל למדריגה התחתונה.
The Talmud discusses the end of that verse: “And they departed from him and returned to their own land [la’aretz]” (II Kings 3:27).
R’ Ḥanina bar Pappa says:
At that time the enemies of the Jewish people, a euphemism for the Jewish people themselves, descended to the lowest level.
He interprets “la’aretz” to mean “to the earth,” teaching that the Jewish people were as low as the dust of the earth.
R’ Hanina bar Pappa - Abishag’s beauty did not reach even half of Sarah’s beauty; “up to very beautiful” excludes the full degree of “very beautiful” attributed to Sarah - I Kings 1:4; Genesis 12:14
״והנערה יפה עד מאד״.
אמר רבי חנינא בר פפא:
עדיין לא הגיעה לחצי יופי של שרה,
דכתיב ״עד מאד״ –
ולא מאד בכלל.
The chapter closes with the explication of a verse stated with regard to Abishag, who attended King David before his death:
“And the young woman (נערה) was very fair [yafa ad me’od ]” (I Kings 1:4).
R’ Ḥanina bar Pappa says:
She still did not reach half the beauty of Sarah,
as it is written: “Ad me’od,” which can be translated as “up to very fair,”
but not including the praise of “very fair.”
By contrast, it is written concerning Sarah: “She was very fair” (Genesis 12:14).
Appendix - Comparing the Talmud’s interpretations with those of modern scholars
Our sugya reads the description of “the prostitutes” washing at the pool of Samaria (I Kings 22:38) in two ways: R’ Elazar interprets the word as an allusion to prophetic “visions,” specifically those of Micaiah and Elijah; Rava understands it as referring to (pornographic) images of prostitutes placed in Ahab’s chariot. Modern commentators generally take the Hebrew zonot in its ordinary sense, “prostitutes.”
The verse itself explicitly presents Ahab’s death as fulfilling a divine prediction, especially Elijah’s prophecy concerning dogs licking his blood. Critical commentators, however, also note a difficulty that the Talmud does not emphasize: Elijah’s prophecy places this punishment where Naboth’s blood was shed, apparently Jezreel, whereas Ahab’s blood is washed away at Samaria. Some scholars therefore treat the present verse as a secondary literary attempt to connect Ahab’s death with the Naboth narrative, or at least as only an approximate fulfillment of the earlier prediction.
Similarly, the Talmud’s reading of the archer’s le-tummo as an allusion to the “completion” of two prophecies is midrashic wordplay. A historical-critical reading simply understands the phrase as describing an unaimed or random shot. The literary point is nevertheless related to the Talmudic one: Ahab is killed by an anonymous archer who was not deliberately targeting him, making his death appear accidental on the human level while fulfilling the prophetic narrative on the theological level.
The treatment of Obadiah involves a more substantial historical divergence. The Talmud identifies the palace official Obadiah of I Kings 18 with the prophet Obadiah and then asks why this particular individual was chosen to prophesy against Edom. Modern scholarship normally distinguishes the two: “Obadiah” was a common Israelite name, and nothing in the Book of Obadiah identifies its author with Ahab’s official.4 I Kings itself describes the latter as a high-ranking palace administrator who secretly protected prophets during Jezebel’s persecution; modern commentators generally read these details as part of the Elijah narrative without connecting him to the later prophetic book.
This distinction also changes the interpretation of Obadiah’s prophecy against Edom. The Talmud explains it biographically: Obadiah lived among Ahab and Jezebel without imitating them, whereas Esau lived among Isaac and Rebekah without imitating them; another tradition makes Obadiah himself an Edomite convert. Critical scholarship instead tends to explain the book through the historical conflict between Judah and Edom. Many scholars date at least substantial portions of Obadiah to the Babylonian destruction of Jerusalem in 586 BCE or its aftermath, when Edom was remembered as having exploited Judah’s catastrophe. On that reconstruction, the hostility toward Edom reflects sixth-century political experience rather than the personal ancestry of the prophet. The dating and compositional history remain disputed, but an exilic or postexilic setting has long been prominent in critical scholarship.
The episode of the king of Moab sacrificing his firstborn son in II Kings 3:27 presents perhaps the closest contact between the Talmud’s questions and modern scholarship. Rav and Shmuel debate whether the sacrifice was offered “for the sake of Heaven” or to an idol. Modern interpreters overwhelmingly understand Mesha as sacrificing his son to the Moabite national god Chemosh. The act belongs naturally within the religious world attested for Moab, and Mesha’s own inscription repeatedly presents Chemosh as the divine patron responsible for Moab’s military fortunes.
The more difficult problem is the next phrase: “there was great wrath against Israel,” after which the Israelite coalition retreats. Here modern scholarship remains divided, just as the Talmud recognized that the verse demands explanation. Some understand the “wrath” as divine anger, though it is unclear why YHWH would punish Israel after having authorized the campaign. Others understand it as the effect of Mesha’s sacrifice, perhaps reflecting the narrator’s recognition that the sacrifice successfully mobilized divine power according to the religious assumptions of the story.
This literary formula (stating that the biblical praise or description of one figure is greater than that of another, based on a difference in the wording of the respective verses) appears a number of times in the Talmud (see the 5 search results here):
R’ [X] says:
greater (גדול) is that which is stated with regard to (שנאמר ב) [biblical figure Y]
than (יותר) that which is stated with regard to (ממה שנאמר ב) [biblical figure Z]:
As with regard to (דאילו ב) [biblical figure Y]
[the verse] states: [A]
and about (וב) [biblical figure Z]
[the verse] states: [B]
For another example, see my “Pt1 Book of Job in Talmudic Interpretation: Job’s Contested Righteousness and Satan’s Character (Bava Batra 15b-16b)“, section “R’ Yoḥanan - Job’s praise is greater than Abraham’s - Job 1:8 vs. Genesis 22:12“.
Steinsaltz explains:
as the handle for the ax that chops the tree is from the forest itself.
On this idea from a comparative perspective, see Wikipedia, “The Woodcutter and the Trees“:
The title of “The Woodcutter and the Trees” covers a complex of fables that are of West Asian and Greek origins, the latter ascribed to Aesop. All of them concern the need to be wary of harming oneself through misplaced generosity.
One of the earliest allusions to a fable of this kind occurs in the story of Ahiqar, a royal counsellor to late Assyrian kings who is betrayed by his adopted son Nadan. When the young man begs for a second chance he is answered with a string of reasons, drawing on West Asian folklore, why this would be useless. Among them is the accusation that ‘Thou hast been to me like the tree that said to its woodcutters, “If something of me were not in your hands, ye had not fallen upon me”.’ This refers to the fact that the axes of the woodmen have wooden shafts and the trees have therefore contributed to their own doom.
A number of proverbs derive from the story, with the general meaning of being to blame for one’s own misfortune. They include the Hebrew ‘the axe goes to the wood from whence it borrowed its helve,’ of which there are Kannada and Urdu equivalents, and the Turkish ‘When the axe came into the Forest, the trees said “The handle is one of us”.’
The general idea is about destruction enabled from within: a member or product of the group becomes the instrument used against the group itself.
Steinsaltz:
i.e., when a piece of meat rots, the rotting begins from the inner part of it. Here too, the punishment is administered by one descended from that very nation.
Compare the modern English expression “the fish rots from the head“; where physical decomposition is likewise used metaphorically for a social group whose source of trouble lies within itself (however, it specifically blames leadership: institutional corruption begins at the top).
And note that this same verb (סרח) is used throughout the Talmud to refer to “sinning”.
On this word, see Jastrow (modernized), entry “סָרַח III”:
(see preceding; compare רִיחַ)
to evaporate, be decomposed; to decay; to smell badly.
passive participle סָרוּחַ; feminine סְרוּחָה; plural: סְרוּחִים, סְרוּחִין; סְרוּחוֹת.
and frequently.
Transferred sense:
a) (compare חָמַץ) to sin, offend.
Sanhedrin 71b:19; Ketubot 45a:1 סָרְחָה ולבסוף בגרה if she sinned (had intercourse) and afterwards became of age.
Bamidbar Rabbah 13 אם אינה סוֹרַחַת … ואם סורחת מלקה (not סוחרת) is she (the ass whom he rides) is not mischievous, he does not strike her, but if she is, he strikes her;
Yalkut Shimoni on Nach 959:16 שאם יִסְרַח יהא וכ׳ to chastise him with them in case he should offend.
Yoma 75a:15 הוא ס׳ עלי he (my husband) acted offensively towards me; היא סרחה וכ׳ she acted offensively etc.
Ibid. 77a סרחה אומתך your people has degenerated.
Midrash Tehillim 6:2 סרחה עליו מדינתו one of his provinces rebelled against him.
Shemot Rabbah 43:8 סָרַחְתָּ כל הסרחון הזה וכ׳ you have done all that mischief, and you criest?
Shemot Rabbah 42:8 לא היה לכם לִסְרוֹחַ וכ׳ you ought not to have sinned either on the second or the third day, but must you sin on the very first day?;
and frequently.
b) to become senseless (compare טַעַם); to be stupid.
Mishnah Sotah 9:15 (Sotah 49b:3) והכמות סופרים תִּסְרַח (or תִּסָּרֵחַ Nif’al:) and the wisdom of the scholars shall become vapid (see Jeremiah 49:7); Sanhedrin 97a; Shir HaShirim Rabbah 2:13; Yalkut Amos 549.
passive participle as above
Shir HaShirim Rabbah 4:8 דיעה ס׳ וכ׳ that senseless fool etc., see דֵּעָה.
Bamidbar Rabbah 20; Midrash Tanḥuma Bal. 9 (referring to the peculiar expression in Numbers 22:29) אע”פ … לשונו ס׳ even when speaking the sacred tongue, the gentile’s speech is tasteless (or obscene).
Nif’al -
נִסְרַח to become vapid, be stupid.
Chagigah 5b:5 (referring to Jeremiah see above) כיון שאבדה … נִסְרַחַת וכ׳ when counsel was gone from the children (of Israel), the wisdom of the nations became vapid.
Hif’il- הִסְרִיחַ
1) to make offensive.
Shabbat 62b:12 (referring to סרחים, Amos 6:4) מַסְרִיחִין וכ׳ make their beds offensive with effusion etc.;
Midrash Tanḥuma Va’era 14 הִסְרִיחוּ מצרים they made Egypt stink;
and elsewhere.
2) to become vapid, putrid; to smell badly.
Shir HaShirim Rabbah 2:13 היין יַסְרִיחַ the wine will become vapid (Sotah see above, and elsewhere. היין ביוקר).
Bereishit Rabbah 34:10 הוא מַסְרִיחַ it becomes putrid; ואינה מַסְרַחַת without decaying.
Midrash Tanḥuma see above ויַסְרִיחוּ במצרים and spread stench in Egypt.
Yalkut Shimoni on Torah 391:14 חלבנה … מסרחת galbanum gives only an offensive smell;
and frequently.
Compare modern English "rotten/rot", which transfers physical putrefaction to moral and social corruption: "a rotten person", "a rotten system", "rotten to the core", "one bad apple spoils the barrel”; see Wiktionary, “rotten“, section “Adjective“:
3 - Cruel, mean or immoral.
4 - Bad or terrible.
See Wikipedia, “Obadiah (given name)”, section “Biblical figures”, for a full list of biblical figures with this name.