Pt2 The Seven Prophetesses of Israel (Megillah 14a-b)
Appendix - Stereotypes and Subversions: An Analysis of the Rabbinic Portrayal of the Seven Prophetesses in Megillah 14a–15a
This is the second and final part of a two-part series. Part 1 is here. The outline for the series can be found at Part 1.
Abigail (I Samuel 25:20)
Abigail's Legal Argument Against David's Nighttime Judgment (I Samuel 25:20): Allusion to Menstrual Blood
The Talmud questions why the verse states "by the covert (סתר) of the mountain" instead of simply saying "from the mountain."
Rabba bar Shmuel interprets "covert" as referring to hidden parts of the body, connecting it to Abigail making a legal argument from niddah against David’s plan to execute her husband Nabal:
She presented David with a cloth stained with her menstrual blood, asking him to determine whether it indicated that she’s a niddah.
David refused to advise her, stating that menstrual blood examinations1 cannot be conducted at night (due to difficulties in distinguishing colors).
She pointed out that just as blood cannot be examined at night, capital cases (דיני נפשות) also cannot be judged at night (thus invalidating David’s plan to execute Nabal).
אביגיל --
דכתיב:
״והיה
היא רוכבת על החמור
ויורדת בסתר ההר״.
״בסתר ההר״? ״מן ההר״ מיבעי ליה!
אמר רבה בר שמואל:
על עסקי דם הבא מן הסתרים.
נטלה דם, והראתה לו.
אמר לה: וכי מראין דם בלילה?!
אמרה לו: וכי דנין דיני נפשות בלילה?!
Abigail was a prophetess,
as it is written:
“And it was so,
as she rode on the donkey,
and came down by the covert of the mountain” (I Samuel 25:20).
The Talmud asks: Why does it say: “By the covert [beseter] of the mountain”? It should have said: From the mountain.
The Talmud answers that in fact this must be understood as an allusion to something else. Rabba bar Shmuel said:
Abigail, in her attempt to prevent David from killing her husband Nabal, came to David and questioned him on account of menstrual blood that comes from the hidden parts [setarim] of a body.
How so? She took a blood-stained cloth and showed it to him, asking him to rule on her status, whether or not she was ritually impure as a menstruating woman.
He said to her: Is blood shown at night?! One does not examine blood-stained cloths at night, as it is difficult to distinguish between the different shades by candlelight.
She said to him: If so, you should also remember another halakha: Are cases of capital law tried at night?! Since one does not try capital cases at night, you cannot condemn Nabal to death at night.
David’s Justification and Abigail’s Rebuttal
David argued that Nabal was a rebel against the throne (מורד במלכות) and could be executed without trial.
However, Abigail refuted his claim, stating that since Saul was still the reigning king, and “and your coin (טבעך) has not gone out”,2 David lacked the authority to punish Nabal as a rebel.
David accepted her reasoning and blessed her for preventing him from committing unnecessary bloodshed.
אמר לה:
מורד במלכות הוא,
ולא צריך למידייניה.
אמרה לו:
עדיין שאול קיים,
ולא יצא טבעך בעולם.
אמר לה:
״ברוך טעמך
וברוכה את
אשר כליתני [היום הזה] מבא בדמים״.
David said to her:
Nabal, your husband, is a rebel against the throne, as David had already been anointed as king by the prophet Samuel, and Nabal refused his orders.
And therefore there is no need to try him, as a rebel is not accorded the ordinary prescriptions governing judicial proceedings.
Abigail said to him:
You lack the authority to act in this manner, as Saul is still alive. He is the king in actual practice,
and your seal [tivakha] has not yet spread across the world, i.e., your kingship is not yet known to all. Therefore, you are not authorized to try someone for rebelling against the monarchy.
David accepted her words and said to her:
“And blessed be your discretion
and blessed be you
who have kept me this day from coming to bloodguiltiness [damim]” (I Samuel 25:33).
Abigail’s Prophecy and David’s Temptation (I Samuel 25:31)
The Talmud states that David was overcome with lust for Abigail when she revealed her thigh (שוקה). He pursued her for three parasangs, and propositioned her for sex.3
Abigail refused him, warning that “this” incident should not be a stumbling block (פוקה) for him—implying that he would later stumble in another matter. The Talmud links this to David’s future transgression with Bathsheba.4
״דמים״ — תרתי משמע!
אלא מלמד שגילתה את שוקה
והלך לאורה שלש פרסאות,
אמר לה: השמעי לי!
אמרה לו: ״לא תהיה זאת לך לפוקה״.
״זאת״ — מכלל דאיכא אחריתי, ומאי ניהו?
מעשה דבת שבע.
ומסקנא הכי הואי.
The Talmud asks: The plural term damim, literally, bloods, indicates two. Why did David not use the singular term dam?
Rather, this teaches that Abigail revealed her thigh,
and he lusted after her, and he went three parasangs by the fire of his desire for her,
and said to her: Listen to me, i.e., listen to me and allow me to be intimate with you.
Abigail then said to him: “Let this not be a stumbling block for you” (I Samuel 25:31).
By inference, from the word “this,” it can be understood that there is someone else who will in fact be a stumbling block for him, and what is this referring to?
The incident involving Bathsheba.
And in the end this is what was, as indeed he stumbled with Bathsheba. This demonstrates that Abigail was a prophetess, as she knew that this would occur. This also explains why David blessed Abigail for keeping him from being responsible for two incidents involving blood that day: Abigail’s menstrual blood and the shedding of Nabal’s blood.
Abigail’s Strategic Proposal (I Samuel 25:29-31)
Before parting from David, Abigail subtly hinted that if Nabal were to die, David should remember her and marry her.5
The Talmud cites folk sayings to illustrate her foresight: like a woman multitasking or a goose (בר אווזא) looking ahead while walking, Abigail was already planning for the future:
איתתא, בהדי שותא, פילכא.
“A woman, while [engaged] in conversation (שותא), [also holds] the spindle (פילכא)”
שפיל ואזיל בר אווזא, ועינוהי מיטייפי
“The goose (בר אווזא) stoops (שפיל) and walks, but its eyes look afar (מיטייפי)”
״והיתה נפש אדוני צרורה בצרור החיים״,
כי הוות מיפטרא מיניה,
אמרה ליה:
״והטיב ה׳ לאדוני
וזכרת את אמתך״.
אמר רב נחמן:
היינו דאמרי אינשי:
איתתא, בהדי שותא,
פילכא.
איכא דאמרי:
שפיל ואזיל בר אווזא,
ועינוהי מיטייפי.
Apropos Abigail, the Talmud explains additional details in the story. Abigail said to David: “Yet the soul of my lord shall be bound in the bond of life with the Lord your God” (I Samuel 25:29),
and when she parted from him
she said to him:
“And when YHWH shall have dealt well with my lord,
and you shall remember your handmaid” (I Samuel 25:31).
Rav Naḥman said that
this explains the folk saying that people say:
While a woman is engaged in conversation
she also holds the spindle,
i.e., while a woman is engaged in one activity she is already taking steps with regard to another.
Abigail came to David in order to save her husband Nabal, but at the same time she indicates that if her husband dies, David should remember her and marry her. And indeed, after Nabal’s death David took Abigail for his wife.
Some say that Rav Naḥman referred to a different saying:
The goose stoops its head as it goes along,
but its eyes look on from afar to find what it is looking for.
So too, Abigail acted in similar fashion.
Huldah (II Kings 22:14)
Huldah was recognized as a prophetess, as indicated by the verse describing how King Josiah (c. late 7th century BCE) sent Hilkiah, Ahikam, Achbor, and other emissaries to her for divine guidance (regarding the book of the law newly discovered in the Temple in Jerusalem).
חולדה --
דכתיב: ״וילך
חלקיהו הכהן
ואחיקם
ועכבור וגו׳״.
Huldah was a prophetess,
as it is written: “So
Hilkiah the priest
and Ahikam
and Achbor
and Shaphan
and Asaiah
went to Huldah the prophetess” (II Kings 22:14) as emissaries of King Josiah.
The Question of Jeremiah’s Presence
The Talmud questions why Huldah was allowed to prophesy when Jeremiah, a greater prophet, was available.6
The Sages of Rav’s school explain that she was a relative of Jeremiah, and he did not object to her role.
ובמקום דקאי ירמיה, היכי מתנביא איהי?
אמרי בי רב, משמיה דרב:
חולדה קרובת ירמיה היתה,
ולא הוה מקפיד עליה.
The Talmud asks: But if Jeremiah was found there, how could she prophesy? Out of respect for Jeremiah, who was her superior, it would have been fitting that she not prophesy in his presence.
The Sages of the school of Rav say in the name of Rav:
Huldah was a close relative of Jeremiah,
and he did not object to her prophesying in his presence.
Josiah’s Choice to Consult Huldah Over Jeremiah: Seeking a Compassionate Response
The Talmud questions why King Josiah sought prophecy from Huldah rather than Jeremiah.
The Sages of R' Sheila suggest that Josiah hoped Huldah, as a woman, would deliver a more compassionate prophecy, as “women are compassionate (רחמניות)“.
ויאשיה גופיה —
היכי שביק ירמיה, ומשדר לגבה?
אמרי דבי רבי שילא:
מפני שהנשים רחמניות הן.
The Talmud asks: But Josiah himself —
how could he ignore Jeremiah and send emissaries to Huldah?
The Sages of the school of R' Sheila say:
Because women are more compassionate, and he hoped that what she would tell them would not be overly harsh.
Josiah’s Choice to Consult Huldah Over Jeremiah: Jeremiah’s Absence due to mission to Return of the Ten Tribes; Josiah’s Rule Over the Ten Tribes (II Kings 23:17; Hosea 6:11)
R' Yoḥanan offers a different reason: Jeremiah was not available because he had gone to bring back the Ten Tribes (עשרת השבטים) from exile.7
A proof that the tribes returned is found in II Kings 23:17, where Josiah is involved with the altar at Bethel (בית אל - a city in the former Northern Kingdom). This suggests he ruled over the Ten Tribes (reinforcing the claim that they had returned).
Rav Naḥman cites Hosea 6:11 as further evidence (interpreting it as a prophecy of the return of the Ten Tribes, thus supporting the idea that they were restored to their homeland under Josiah’s reign).
רבי יוחנן אמר:
ירמיה לא הוה התם,
שהלך להחזיר עשרת השבטים
[…]
ויאשיהו בן אמון מלך עליהן,
דכתיב:
״ויאמר:
מה הציון הלז אשר אני רואה?
ויאמרו אליו אנשי העיר:
הקבר איש האלהים אשר בא מיהודה
ויקרא את הדברים האלה אשר עשית על המזבח בבית אל״,
וכי מה טיבו של יאשיהו על המזבח בבית אל?
אלא מלמד:
שיאשיהו מלך עליהן.
רב נחמן אמר:
מהכא:
״גם יהודה שת קציר לך
בשובי שבות עמי״.
R' Yoḥanan said a different answer:
Jeremiah was not there at the time,
because he went to bring back the ten tribes from their exile.
[…]
And Josiah the son of Amon ruled over the ten tribes,
as it is written:
“Then he said:
What monument is that which I see?
And the men of the city told him:
It is the tomb of the man of God who came from Judah
and proclaimed these things that you have done against the altar of Bethel” (II Kings 23:17).
Now what connection did Josiah, king of Judea, have with the altar at Bethel, a city in the kingdom of Israel?
Rather, this teaches that
Josiah ruled over the ten tribes of Israel.
Rav Naḥman said:
Proof that the tribes returned may be adduced from the verse here:
“Also, O Judah, there is a harvest appointed for you,
when I would return the captivity of My people” (Hosea 6:11), which indicates that they returned to their places.
Esther (Esther 5:1; I Chronicles 12:19)
The verse states that Esther “clothed herself in royalty” rather than explicitly mentioning royal garments. This unusual phrasing suggests a deeper meaning beyond physical attire.
A linguistic parallel is drawn from I Chronicles 12:19, where Amasai (item 2, = עמשי, item 1) is described as being “clothed” by a spirit (רוח).
Just as Amasai was “clothed” by a spirit, Esther’s “clothing” signifies being enveloped by the Holy Spirit.8
אסתר —
דכתיב:
״ויהי ביום השלישי
ותלבש אסתר מלכות״,
בגדי מלכות מיבעי ליה!
אלא שלבשתה רוח הקדש,
כתיב הכא: ״ותלבש״,
וכתיב התם: ״ורוח לבשה את עמשי וגו׳״.
Esther was also a prophetess,
as it is written:
“And it came to pass on the third day
that Esther clothed herself in royalty” (Esther 5:1).
It should have said: Esther clothed herself in royal garments.
Rather, this alludes to the fact that she clothed herself with a divine spirit of inspiration.
It is written here: “And she clothed herself,”
and it is written elsewhere: “And the spirit clothed Amasai” (I Chronicles 12:19).
Just as there the reference is to being enclothed by a spirit, so too Esther was enclothed by a spirit of divine inspiration.
Appendix - Stereotypes and Subversions: An Analysis of the Rabbinic Portrayal of the Seven Prophetesses in Megillah 14a–15a
The Talmudic passage in Megillah 14a–15a presents seven women as prophetesses—Sarah, Miriam, Deborah, Hannah, Abigail, Huldah, and Esther. On the surface, this list appears celebratory, a recognition of female spiritual authority. Each woman is linked to a biblical episode that reveals prophetic foresight, moral courage, or theological insight. Yet beneath this honorific gesture lies a web of gendered assumptions—where women are validated only within certain constraints, and their greatness is generally refracted through male thoughts about power, sexuality, and propriety.
Women’s Prophecy as Gendered Intuition and Domestic Insight
The Talmud often treats prophecy from women as emanating not from public roles or formal authority but from private or bodily knowledge. This is especially clear with Sarah and Miriam.
Sarah is identified with Iscah, whom the Talmud says “saw through the Holy Spirit.” Her prophecy is inferred from the divine command to Abraham to “listen to her voice” (Gen. 21:12)—but even this legitimization comes only because God confirms it. Furthermore, her alternate interpretation—"everyone gazed at her beauty"—ties her prophetic name to her appearance.
Miriam is praised for foretelling the birth of a savior before Moses was born. Yet the passage narrates how her father's confidence in her falters when the baby is cast into the Nile, prompting him to slap her on the head. Miriam stands "from a distance" not just to watch her brother but to "see what will become of her prophecy." Her status is contingent on validation by men—first through her father's kiss, then his doubt. The language of physical correction (ṭafḥah—he struck her) starkly reveals how even prophetic women are subject to patriarchal discipline.
Piety and Prophecy in the Shadow of Sexuality
No figure embodies the contradictions of female agency in rabbinic literature more fully than Abigail. She is simultaneously portrayed as:
a legal and theological virtuoso—convincing David that just as menstrual blood cannot be assessed at night, so too capital cases must wait for daylight;
a prophetic figure—foreseeing David’s future sin with Bathsheba;
and an object of overwhelming sexual desire—David pursues her thigh-light for three parasangs, begging for intimacy.
The Talmud juxtaposes Abigail's prophetic restraint ("let this not be a stumbling block") with David's lust, thereby suggesting that her body is both a site of wisdom and temptation. She is wise, but she must manage male desire carefully so as not to become its casualty.
Similarly, Deborah is associated with fire (Lappidoth), yet this is reinterpreted through a domestic lens: she made temple wicks. She judges Israel under a palm tree—a symbol both of modesty (to avoid seclusion with men) and of purity ("one heart" like a palm's single trunk). Again, her authority is accepted only because it avoids threatening male propriety.
Subtle Strategists, Not Sovereign Rulers
Several of the prophetesses are praised for their cunning, yet this often reinforces the stereotype of women as indirect actors.
Abigail is likened to a multitasking woman spinning thread while she speaks (or to a goose walking with eyes far ahead)—a metaphor for feminine foresight in service of relational goals. Her prophecy is not public like Jeremiah’s, but strategic and wifely—she saves her husband and subtly positions herself for remarriage.
The Talmud’s attribution of prophecy to these women thus often casts them as shrewd supporters of male power—never challengers.
Public Power Always in the Shadow of Male Authority
Both Huldah and Deborah are anomalies—public figures dispensing divine will. Yet their legitimacy is hedged.
The Talmud anxiously questions how Huldah can prophesy when Jeremiah is around. The answer? She is his relative, and he didn’t mind. Her legitimacy is not based on her merit but on male tolerance or absence. Another suggestion is that King Josiah consulted her because “women are more compassionate”—a trope that feminizes prophecy as soft, motherly, and non-threatening.
Deborah’s judicial authority is accepted—but only because she holds court under a palm tree to avoid suspicion of yichud (improper seclusion). Her religious leadership is circumscribed by concern for propriety; her symbolic unity with Israel is valued, but her status remains exceptional.
Divine Creation and Female Form
The most theologically ambitious interpretation appears in Hannah’s prayer. The Talmud reads “there is no rock like our God” as “there is no artist like our God,” praising the divine ability to form a fetus “inside a form,” complete with spirit, soul, and organs. This contrasts human artisans who can only paint lifeless forms on walls.
While powerful, this analogy still binds women to their reproductive capacity. The miracle is not prophecy per se, but the female body as a passive site of divine creativity.
Conclusion: Revered but Restricted
The prophetesses in Megillah 14a–15a are revered, but their portrayals rarely escape the gravitational pull of rabbinic gender ideology. They are wise, but only when that wisdom can be framed as maternal, modest, or erotic. They are powerful, but only in the gaps left by absent or permissive men. They are visionary, but their vision must always serve the patriarchal order.
In the end, the passage acknowledges that women can indeed be vessels of the divine—but only as women, meaning within roles and representations that reinforce, rather than subvert, the rabbinic worldview. These prophetesses are celebrated not despite being women, but as idealized versions of what women should be—modest, clever, beautiful, and supportive of male authority.
מראין דם - for niddah status.
See Mishnah_Niddah.2.6-7, where the Mishnah lists and defines five colors of menstrual blood that render a woman ritually impure as a niddah (and thereby prohibited from having sex):
Red – the color of the blood of a wound (מכה)
Black – as black as ḥeret (חרת - possibly pitch or black ink).
Crocus (כרכום)-colored – the color of the bright (ברור) orange interior of the saffron flower
“Earth-water” (מימי אדמה) – the color of the reddish muddy water from Beit HaKerem Valley (בקעת בית כרם - in the Galilee), after flooding (מציף).
Diluted (מזוג - literally: “mixed”) wine – the color of 2 parts water, 1 part wine, specifically “Sharonite wine” (יין השרוני - i.e. wine from the Sharon region of Israel).
The full passage:
חמשה דמים טמאים באשה:
האדם,
והשחר,
וכקרן כרכום,
וכמימי אדמה,
וכמזוג.
[…]
איזהו אדם,
כדם המכה.
שחר,
כחרת […]
וכקרן כרכום,
כברור שבו.
וכמימי אדמה,
מבקעת בית כרם, ומציף מים.
וכמזוג,
שני חלקים מים ואחד יין, מן היין השרוני:
There are five distinct colors of ritually impure blood in a woman:
Red,
and black,
and like the bright color of the crocus [karkom] flower,
and like water that inundates red earth,
and like diluted wine.
[…]
The mishna asks: What is the red color that is impure?
It is as red as the blood that flows from a wound.
What is the black color that is impure?
It is blood as black as ḥeret […]
And what is the color that is like the bright color of the crocus flower that is impure?
It is like the brightest part in the flower, which is harvested to produce the orange-colored spice saffron.
And what is the color that is like water that inundates red earth that is impure?
It is specifically earth from the Beit Kerem Valley and specifically when one inundates the earth with enough water until it pools on the surface.
And what is the color that is like diluted wine that is impure?
It is specifically when the dilution consists of two parts water and one part wine, and specifically when it is from the wine of the Sharon region in Eretz Yisrael.
השמעי לי - I quote this section in a previous piece of mine.
Thus confirming Abigail’s prophetic insight.
And indeed, ultimately, after Nabal’s death, David married her, fulfilling her prediction..
The Talmud in a number of places elsewhere establishes the principle that a rabbi may not issue a halachic ruling in the general presence of a more eminent rabbi—that is, when the greater rabbi is relatively accessible. Here, a comparable assumption is extended to the realm of prophecy.
The Talmud goes on to try to prove this assertion, the first proof is somewhat convoluted and complex; I elide it.
רוח הקדש - thus establishing her status as a prophetess.
This passage appears as well in the extended aggadic sugya in Tractate Megillah 10b-17a; see my quote of it in my piece “Talmudic Interpretations of the Book of Esther: Esther 4:1-5:2 (Megillah 15a-b)“, section “Esther’s Divine Inspiration (Esther 5:1; I Chronicles 12:19)“.