Pt2 Defending God, Biblical Monotheism, and Jewish Distinctiveness: Twelve Dialogues Between Sages and Challengers in the Talmud (Sanhedrin 38b-39a)
Dialogues #3-7
This is the second part of a three-part series. Part 1 is here, the outline can be found there.
Dialogue #3 - Roman Emperor vs. Rabban Gamliel and an Anonymous Woman: Genesis 2:21 - “He took one of his sides…” - God is a thief for taking Adam’s rib to create Eve
Part 1 - The Emperor’s Critique: God Stole Adam’s Rib to Create Eve; Anonymous Woman’s Response: It Was Worth It
A Roman emperor1 challenged Rabban Gamliel, accusing God of theft for taking Adam's rib to create Eve in the Biblical story of Eve’s creation.
“His daughter” intervened (it’s ambiguous if this is the Roman emperor’s daughter, as Steinsaltz interprets, or Rabban Gamliel’s daughter), saying: “Leave him! I will respond to him”.2
She stated to the emperor (presumably, to imagine) that robbers had replaced his silver jug (קיתון) with a golden one.
The emperor, pleased with the outcome, wished for such robbers to come daily.
She then drew the parallel: just as the exchange was beneficial, it was also beneficial for Adam, asking rhetorically: “Was it not good for Adam the first man that God took a single rib (צלע) from him, and gave him a maidservant (שפחה) to serve him?!”.
א"ל כופר לרבן גמליאל:
אלהיכם גנב הוא
דכתיב (בראשית ב, כא):
"ויפל ה' אלהים תרדמה על האדם
ויישן"
אמרה ליה ברתיה:
שבקיה!
דאנא מהדרנא ליה
אמרה ליה: תנו לי דוכוס אחד
א"ל: למה ליך?
ליסטין באו עלינו הלילה,
ונטלו ממנו קיתון של כסף
והניחו לנו קיתון של זהב
אמר לה: ולוואי שיבא עלינו בכל יום!
ולא יפה היה לו לאדם הראשון,
שנטלו ממנו צלע אחת,
ונתנו לו שפחה לשמשו?!
The Roman emperor said to Rabban Gamliel:
Your God is a thief,
as it is written:
“And the Lord God caused a deep sleep to fall upon the man
and he slept; and He took one of his sides, and closed up the place with flesh instead” (Genesis 2:21).
The daughter of the emperor said to Rabban Gamliel:
Leave him,
as I will respond to him.
She said to her father: Provide one commander [dukhus]3 for me to avenge someone’s wrongdoing.
The emperor said to her: Why do you need him?
She said to him: Armed bandits4 came to us this past night,
and took a silver jug [kiton] from us,
and left a golden jug for us.
The emperor said to her: If so, would it be that armed bandits such as these would come to us every day!
She said to him: And was it not similarly good for Adam the first man
that God took a side from him
and gave him a maidservant to serve him?!
Part 2 - Eve’s Creation While Adam Slept: Ensuring Acceptance, Like Cooking Raw Meat Privately to Avoid Repulsion
The emperor clarifies that he meant to ask a different question: Why did God create Eve from Adam’s side specifically while he was asleep, as opposed to “in the open” (בהדיא)? (Doing so in his sleep seems secretive.)
The woman responds with a physical demonstration to the emperor to show that seeing raw meat can make it seem unappetizing, even if it’s part of the normal cooking process: She roasts a piece (אומצא) of raw meat and offers it to him, but he finds it repulsive despite knowing it’s been properly prepared.5
She explains the analogy: if Eve had been created openly, Adam would have found her similarly repulsive.6
אמר לה:
הכי קאמינא
אלא לשקליה בהדיא
אמרה ליה: אייתו לי אומצא דבישרא
אייתו לה
אותבה תותי בחשא, אפיקתה
אמרה ליה: אכול מהאי
אמר לה: מאיסא לי
אמרה ליה:
ואדם הראשון נמי
אי הות שקילה בהדיא, הוה מאיסא ליה
The emperor said to her:
This is what I was saying:
But if it is good for Adam, let God take his side from him in the open, not during the time of his deep sleep, like a thief.
She said to him: Bring me a slice of raw meat.
They brought it to her.
She placed it under the embers, and removed it after it was roasted.
She said to him: Eat from this meat.
The emperor said to her: It is repulsive to me. Although he knew that this is how meat is prepared, seeing the raw meat made it repulsive to him.
She said to him:
With regard to Adam the first man as well,
had God taken her from him in the open, she would have been repulsive to him. Therefore God acted while Adam was asleep.
Dialogue #4 - Roman Emperor vs. Rabban Gamliel: Claims knowledge of God’s actions and location
A Roman emperor claimed to Rabban Gamliel that he knew all about God’s actions and location.
However, as he spoke, he expressed distress over his son, who was far away overseas,7 saying he missed (גיעגועים) him, and admitting he didn’t know where he was.
Rabban Gamliel rhetorically pointed out the irony: if the emperor couldn't know the whereabouts of his own son on earth, how could he claim to understand matters of heaven?!8
א"ל כופר לרבן גמליאל:
ידענא אלהייכו מאי קא עביד (והיכן יתיב)
איתנגד ואיתנח
א"ל: מאי האי?
א"ל: בן אחד יש לי בכרכי הים, ויש לי גיעגועים עליו
בעינא דמחוית ליה ניהלי
אמר: מי ידענא היכא ניהו?!
א"ל: דאיכא בארעא לא ידעת, דאיכא בשמיא ידעת?!
The emperor said to Rabban Gamliel:
I know your God, what He does and where He sits.
Meanwhile, the emperor was moaning and groaning.
Rabban Gamliel said to him: What is this? Why are you in distress?
The emperor said to him: I have one son in the cities overseas and I miss him.
Rabban Gamliel said to him: I want you to show him to me.
The emperor said: Do I know where he is?!
Rabban Gamliel said to him: If you do not know that which is on earth, is it possible that you do know that which is in the heavens?!
Dialogue #5 - Roman Emperor vs. Rabban Gamliel: Psalms 147:4 - “He counts the number of the stars…” - There is no greatness in counting stars; humans can count them too
The emperor said to Rabban Gamliel: It is written as a praise of the Lord, “He counts the number of the stars; He gives them all their names” (Psalms 147:4). The emperor rhetorically asks: “What’s so great about that?! I can count the stars, too!”
In response, Rabban Gamliel brought some quinces (חבושי), placed them in a sieve (ארבילא), and spun it around. He said to the emperor: Now, count them.
The emperor replied: Stop spinning it so I can count.
Rabban Gamliel answered: The heavens are also this way (i.e. they also revolve in this way, so, in fact, you cannot properly count the stars within them).
The Talmud quotes another version of the story: the emperor claimed he had already counted the stars.
Rabban Gamliel challenged him by asking how many teeth he had.
As the emperor began counting by feeling his mouth, Rabban Gamliel remarked: "You don’t even know what’s in your own mouth, yet you claim to know what’s in the heavens?!"
אמר ליה כופר לרבן גמליאל:
כתיב (תהלים קמז, ד): "מונה מספר לכוכבים"
מאי רבותיה?! אנא מצינא למימנא כוכבי!
אייתי חבושי
שדינהו בארבילא
וקא מהדר להו
אמר ליה: מנינהו
א"ל: אוקמינהו
א"ל: רקיע נמי הכי הדרא
איכא דאמרי:
הכי א"ל: מני לי כוכבי
א"ל: אימא לי, ככיך ושיניך כמה הוה?
שדא ידיה לפומיה, וקא מני להו
א"ל: דאיכא בפומיך לא ידעת, דאיכא ברקיעא ידעת?!
The emperor said to Rabban Gamliel:
It is written in praise of the Lord: “He counts the number of the stars; He gives them all their names” (Psalms 147:4).
What is His greatness?! I can also count the stars.
Rabban Gamliel brought quinces,
put them in a sieve,
and spun them.
He said to the emperor: Count them.
The emperor said to him: Stand them still so that I can count them.
Rabban Gamliel said to him: The firmament also revolves like this, therefore you cannot count the stars in it.
Some say that
this is what the emperor said to him: I have counted the stars.
Rabban Gamliel said to him: Tell me how many teeth and incisors you have.
The emperor put his hand in his mouth and was counting them.
Rabban Gamliel said to him: You do not know what is in your mouth, but you do know what is in the firmament?!
Dialogue #6 - Roman Emperor vs. Rabban Gamliel: Amos 4:13 - Different verbs imply two deities created different parts of creation
A Roman emperor argued to Rabban Gamliel that the use of different verbs in the Bible, in the Book of Amos—“forms” (יוצר) for mountains and “creates” (בורא) for wind—suggests that two deities were responsible for different parts of creation.
Rabban Gamliel countered by pointing out that, if that logic applied, one would have to believe that two deities were involved in creating the parts of Adam, as those same two verbs are also used in the Bible in the Book of Genesis in the story of the creation of Adam.
He extended this reasoning to the specific features of a face, with different verbs used in the Book of Psalms for creating eyes and ears (“forming”, as in previous two, and “planted” - נוטע), rhetorically asking if one deity created one part while another created another.
The emperor responded affirmatively (i.e. that, in fact, different deities created different parts of the face), but Rabban Gamliel challenged him further, rhetorically asking if, at death, all these deities would agree9 (i.e. on the person's time to die.)
א"ל כופר לרבן גמליאל:
מי שברא הרים לא ברא רוח
שנאמר (עמוס ד, יג): "כי הנה יוצר הרים, ובורא רוח"
אלא מעתה,
גבי אדם דכתיב: "ויברא", "וייצר"
הכי נמי, מי שברא זה לא ברא זה!?
טפח על טפח יש בו באדם
ושני נקבים יש בו
מי שברא זה לא ברא זה!?
שנאמר (תהלים צד, ט):
"הנוטע אוזן, הלא ישמע,
ואם יוצר עין, הלא יביט"
א"ל: אין
א"ל: ובשעת מיתה, כולן נתפייסו?!
The emperor said to Rabban Gamliel:
He Who created mountains did not create wind, rather two separate gods created them,
as it is stated: “For, lo, He forms mountains and creates wind” (Amos 4:13); one is described with the verb “forms,” and the other with the verb “creates.”
Rabban Gamliel said to him: If that is so,
then with regard to Adam, as it is written concerning him: “And God created” (Genesis 1:27), and also: “And the Lord God formed” (Genesis 2:7),
so too should one say that He who created this did not create that?!
If you will claim that different gods created different parts of Adam, that will not suffice. A person has one handbreadth by one handbreadth of facial countenance,
with two types of orifices in it, eyes and ears.
Should one say that He who created this did not create that?!;
as it is stated:
“He that planted the ear, shall He not hear?!
He that formed the eye, shall He not see?!” (Psalms 94:9)? The verse employs two verbs for the eyes and ears alone.
The emperor said to him: Yes, different gods created different parts of the face.
Rabban Gamliel said to him: And at the moment of death, are they all appeased? Do all these gods agree as one that the time arrived for the person to die?
Dialogue #7 - Magus vs. Ameimar: Dualistic view: upper body belongs to one deity, lower body to another
In this Talmudic passage, a magus (אמגושא; a Zoroastrian priest) tells the rabbinic sage Ameimar that (according to Zoroastrianism) the upper body belongs to Hurmiz (הורמיז)10 and the lower body to Ahurmiz (אהורמיז).
Ameimar challenges this view, asking rehotorically: “If so, how does Ahurmiz allow Hurmiz to urinate in his territory?!” (Meaning, why would Ahurmiz allow Hurmiz to control urination, given that people drink from their mouths (in the upper body) and urinate from below (in the lower body).)
א"ל ההוא אמגושא לאמימר: מפלגך לעילאי דהורמיז, מפלגך לתתאי דאהורמיז
א"ל: א"כ, היכי שביק ליה אהורמיז להורמיז לעבורי מיא בארעיה?!
The Gemara relates: A certain magus said to Ameimar: From your midpoint and up is in the domain of Hurmiz, the god of good, who created the significant and important parts of the body, and from your midpoint and down is in the domain of Ahurmiz, the god of bad.
Ameimar said to him: If so, how does Ahurmiz allow Hurmiz to urinate in his territory? A person drinks with his mouth, which is in his upper half, and urinates from below.
In the printed edition: כופר - “heretic”, but correctly: קיסר - “Caesar”, i.e. a Roman emperor.
The same interjection as in the earlier section, in part 1, dialogue #2 - “Heretic vs. R' Yishmael son of R' Yosei and an Anonymous Launderer”.
Compare Wikipedia, “Psychology of eating meat“ > “Consumer psychology“:
Meat is traditionally a high-status food. It may be associated with cultural traditions, and has strong positive associations in most of the world; however, it sometimes has a negative image among consumers, partly due to its associations with slaughter, death, and blood. Holding these associations more strongly may decrease feelings of pleasure from eating meat and increase disgust, leading to lowered meat consumption. In the West, these effects have been found to be particularly true among young women. Negative associations may only cause consumers to make meat less noticeable in their diets rather than reducing or eliminating it, for example making meat an ingredient in a more-processed dish. It has been suggested that this is the result of a disconnect between individuals' roles as consumers and as citizens.
מאיסא.
Compare the talmudic statement, quoted in my piece here, that rationally, men should find women repulsive:, and yet, “they all run after her”:
תנא:
אשה
חמת מלא צואה,
ופיה מלא דם —
והכל רצין אחריה.
[...]
A tanna taught in a baraita:
A woman is essentially
a flask full of feces, a reference to the digestive system,
and her mouth is full of blood, a euphemistic reference to menstruation,
yet men are not deterred and they all run after her with desire.
[...]
Notably, sex involves actions that might otherwise trigger disgust responses— i.e. exposure to bodily fluids and close physical contact. Psychologists have found that, in intimate or arousing contexts, disgust can be overridden by sexual arousal.
See Wikipedia, “Pathogen avoidance“ > “Sexual behavior“:
Sexual behavior with another individual, such as intercourse is a major source of pathogenic risk particularly for bacterial or viral infection.
Research has found a negative relationship between sexual arousal and disgust, indicating that when sexual arousal increases disgust responses decrease.
בכרכי הים - literally: “in the cities of the sea”; on this talmudic term, see the note in my piece here.
Compare the stories of a Roman emperor and R’ Yehoshua ben Hananya, in my piece here, wanting to see God, and serve God and his entourage (familia), where R’ Yehoshua ben Hananya similarly shows the emperor that despite his power, he can’t see God, and can’t adequately serve God and his entourage.
See Hormuz - Wikipedia:
Hormuz is derived from the Persian Ohrmuzd, meaning Ahura Mazda.
Ahura Mazda […] also known as Horomazes, is the creator deity and god of the sky in the ancient Iranian religion Zoroastrianism. He is the first and most frequently invoked spirit in the Yasna. The literal meaning of the word Ahura is "lord", and that of Mazda is "wisdom".